Critical Social Justice / Woke-sekoilu

[zupi]

Rufolta uusi pala. Hyvää settiä. Suomen kannalta pitää vain vaihtaa kriittisen rotuteorian paikalle kriittinen teoria / pedagogiikka tai intersektionaalinen feminismi / feministinen pedagogiikka. Puhutaan kuitenkin käytännössä täysin samasta asiasta.

The Courage of Our Convictions
How to fight critical race theory

Critical race theory is fast becoming America's new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it—and of those who have, many don't understand it. This must change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

To explain critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism. Originally, the Marxist Left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Karl Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: the workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class, and usher in a new socialist society.

During the twentieth century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million people. They are remembered for gulags, show trials, executions, and mass starvations. In practice, Marx's ideas unleashed man's darkest brutalities.

By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers' revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, which had large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream—the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work, and good citizenship.

But rather than abandon their political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx's economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.

(...)

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions over the past decade. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human-resources departments, in the form of diversity-training programs, human-resources modules, public-policy frameworks, and school curricula.

Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including "equity," "social justice," "diversity and inclusion," and "culturally responsive teaching." Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that "neo-Marxism" would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents "mere nondiscrimination" and provides "camouflage" for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.

In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights (umm, et omista mitään mutta olet onnellinen...), seizing land and wealth, and redistributing them along racial lines (helvetin hölmöt, kaikki "jaetaan" huipulla olevalle yhdelle promillelle). Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others deemed insufficiently "antiracist."

One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since, according to Kendi, "In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist." In other words, identity is the means; Marxism is the end.

An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. (...)

I'm just one investigative journalist, but I've developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, I am not exaggerating—from the universities to bureaucracies to K-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic, and oriented toward broadly held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn't limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., but is true as well of institutions in the states—even red states. It is spreading to county public health departments, small midwestern school districts, and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.

So far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. (...)

Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter's "white fragility," "unconscious bias," or "internalized white supremacy." (...)

Fourth and finally, the writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against critical race theory have tended to address it on the theoretical level, pointing out the theory's logical contradictions and dishonest account of history. These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm—friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.

No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving cultural hegemony in America's public institutions. It is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level.

(...)

There are three parts to a successful strategy to defeat the forces of critical race theory: governmental action, grassroots mobilization, and an appeal to principle.

(...)

On the grassroots level, a multiracial and bipartisan coalition is emerging to fight critical race theory. Parents are mobilizing against racially divisive curricula in public schools and employees are increasingly speaking out against Orwellian reeducation in the workplace. When they see what is happening, Americans are naturally outraged that critical race theory promotes three ideas—race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation—that violate the basic principles of equality and justice. Anecdotally, many Chinese-Americans have told me that, having survived the Cultural Revolution in their former country, they refuse to let the same thing happen here.

(...)

Above all, we must have courage, the fundamental virtue required in our time: courage to stand and speak the truth, courage to withstand epithets, courage to face the mob, and courage to shrug off the scorn of elites. When enough of us overcome the fear that currently prevents so many from speaking out, the hold of critical race theory will begin to slip. And courage begets courage. It's easy to stop a lone dissenter; it's much harder to stop 10, 20, 100, 1,000, 1 million, or more who stand up together for the principles of America. Truth and justice are on our side. If we can muster the courage, we will win.

https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-fight-critical-race-theory

[zupi]

Tällainen twiitti-ketju osui silmiin, useammankin "seurannassa olevan henkilön" uudelleen-postaamana. Grace ei nyt sinänsä itsessäni herätä kovin suuria myötätuntoja, Gracen apuja tarvitsisi ymmärtääkseni aika lailla myös esim. monet USAn veteraanit. Ja myös todella monet ei-veteraanit. Se nyt ei ehkä olisi kuitenkaan niin coolia...

Mutta joka tapauksessa tämä on erittäin hyvä esimerkki siitä, miten vihavasurit pyrkivät ottamaan haltuunsa kaikki tietynlaista toimintaa harjoittavat organisaatiot. Ja sen jälkeen tietenkin muuttavat ne ajamaan vihavasemmistolaista agendaansa. Gracelle kymmenen pistettä ja papukaijamerkki siitä, että ajoi tuon totaalisen paskajengin tiehensä ja puhuu avoimesti sitä vastaan.

[tweet]1386739669866455043[/tweet]

I've wondered if it's worth sharing "my story." I'm a pretty private person so it feels weird to share. But I think it's worth it bc we all need encouragement that ordinary ppl can do something about what's happening to our country. So, why do I talk about Woke stuff?

The Woke Mob: my survival story

My husband and I co-founded a justice-oriented non-profit org 11 years ago. At the time, we knew nothing about Critical Social Justice or Critical Theory. Our motivation was to address disparities in mental health care. 1/

We'd learned that lay people (ppl without clinical training) made up the majority of trauma care providers around the world working with vulnerable populations (refugees, human trafficking survivors, etc). We wanted to help equip those lay people with good resources. 2/

We hired clinically trained mental health professionals to develop our curriculum, oversee MEL, and run the international training program. Everything went great for about 7 years. We got accolades from all the right people in academia and partnered with orgs in 50+ countries. 3/

Then a few years ago we noticed a tone shift among our program staff. They became hyper-critical of *everything.* As Executive Director, my husband felt he was always on trial. Every word and action was scrutinized. We couldn't figure out where this was coming from. 4/

We noticed shared rhetoric among the staff. Terms we heard often:
"systems of power and oppression"
"hegemony"
"marginalized identities"
"intersections"
"centering"
"deconstruct"
"knowledges"
"normativity"
Didn't understand the ideology behind it, started doing some reading. 5/

Then the open letters started. The letters always went to everyone in the org (from the graphic designer to the governing board), they always asserted vaguely that the organization was "causing harm," and they always ended with demands. We were alarmed and confused. 6/

We began having all-org sessions trying to discern what was happening and what was needed. It was quickly apparent there were no specific actions or incidents that could be deemed harmful. The accusations were always vague and abstract, about "identities", "systems," etc. 7/

What also became apparent quickly was they didn't want to resolve any real harm. They wanted control of the organization. They stated explicitly my husband was incapable of running an org that addresses trauma (an org he founded!) bc he's straight, white, male, and Christian. 8/

That's when I learned to fight. I'd been doing my homework for a while. Thanks to people like @NeilShenvi
, @ConceptualJames
, @wokal_distance
, @WokeTemple
, @D_B_Harrison
and @realchrisrufo
, I knew what we were facing. It was an attempted woke subversion of the organization. 9/

I wrote organizational position papers on how Critical Social Justice compromised our work by being in direct conflict with a number of our organizational commitments, namely, being evidence-based, valuing the individual, cultural humility, and allowing for true diversity. 10/

Maybe I shouldn't be proud of it, but I also learned to use their woke rules against them. When a staff member said I couldn't speak to a topic bc I'm straight, I told her it was wrong of her to assume about my sexuality just bc I'm married to a man. She immediately groveled. 11/

After some months, when it was clear to them we wouldn't budge, the ones making demands left "on moral grounds," accusing us of every phobia and calling the org "white supremacist." We've always partnered with ppl of every ethnicity, creed and identity, so this is laughable. 12/

Having survived an attempted power grab and character assassination by a woke mob, I'll say it's painful to be mistreated by ppl you trusted. But if you care more about maintaining your integrity than what people think or say about you, you'll emerge with your dignity intact. 13/

Don't apologize for vague accusations of "harm." It's not a fair fight. They don't want dialogue. Expose their inconsistencies - show how their demands won't achieve what they claim to care about (helping the poor, etc). It'll require some reading and a lot of courage. 14/

If you don't fight this nonsense now, wherever it's showing up in your community, there'll be nothing good, true, or beautiful to defend soon. We will be ruled by lies and power while being told we're progressing toward truth and justice. 15/

Open war is upon us, there is no "safe" any more. Choose which kind of "unsafe" you want. Fighting lies is always preferable to being ruled by them. I believe they can be defeated. I believe the truth will prevail.

Thanks for reading my story, I'd love to hear yours. 16/16

Perään vielä tämä. Tuosta twiittiketjusta löytyy kaikki Rufon jutut vihavasemmiston koulumädätyksestä USAssa. Monet ovat olleet täällä esillä. Rapakon tällä puolella nuo perkeleet osaavat asian paremmin: Ei pidä jättää mitään kirjallisia todisteita (tai verratkaa esim. Biden vs. Merkel, molemmat ihan samalla asialla). Mutta itse olen kyllä melkoisen vakuuttunut siitä, että Suomessakin on jo hyvin paljon opettajia, jotka ovat täysin tuon kulttihulluuden kourissa, ja tunkevat sitä täysillä lasten kurkusta alas. Muistakaa, mikä oli opettajien reaktio ps-nuorten "ilmiantokampanjaan"...

[tweet]1387091640909664257[/tweet]

[Nuivettunut Han-nenetsi]

Tulee aina välillä mieleen kun lukee noista woke-hihhuleista jotka syyttävät kaikesta mahdollisesta kryptisillä intersektionaalisilla käsitteillään, että pitäisikö niille vaan vastata että "nyt sun ote taitaa vähän lipsua, kun unohdit syyttää minua myös neuvostovastaiseksi taantumukselliseksi porvariksi ja luokkaviholliseksi" ...

[zupi]

Peter Boghossianin lyhyt kirjoitus wokeistien totalitarismista, reilun vuoden takaa. Tuolloin ei oltu asiaa vielä nimetty kriittiseksi sosiaaliseksi oikeudeksi.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/02/illiberalism-social-justice/

The Illiberalism of Social Justice

Social Justice is a dangerous, illiberal ideology that is taking over society. Although often associated with "liberalism" in the United States, it is explicitly anti-liberal. (...)

One of the easiest ways to understand how illiberal Social Justice can be is available to anyone who attempts to criticize it. Those who criticize Social Justice are not thanked for helping to improve its tenets. Rather, they're called bigots, homophobes, Nazis, grifters, misogynists, or, the trump card meant to silence all conversation: racists.

Proving its commitment to illiberalism even further, when the accused denies these accusations and demands evidence to substantiate claims that they're racist, this denial is taken as evidence of guilt. To ask for evidence of racism is considered a form of willful ignorance of racism, according to Social Justice. Then, when the accused points out the obvious, that name calling isn't an argument and they'd like to have a conversation about the manifestation of Social Justice that led them to be accused in the first place, nobody comes forward to converse. In the Social Justice ideological paradigm, conversing with someone who's been accused of being a racist, sexist, or bigot would be acting in complicity with racism. (There's even a word in their lexicon for this, "platforming.") So conversation is a priori ruled out.

But Social Justice's illiberalism is actually far worse. In many situations, because nobody comes forward to speak with the accused—in spite of the fact that he has pleaded with adherents and enforcers of Social Justice ideology to have a conversation—a narrative is then constructed that paints the accused as someone who does not want to have a conversation with anyone with whom he disagrees. Moreover, this is often reframed as the accused being unwilling to have a conversation about racism!

And this is exactly what has happened to me. (...)

The unwillingness of Social Justice adherents to speak with me—or others who challenge their doctrines—does not stop them from accusing me of not wanting to speak with them. In fact, it escalates those accusations. This is because the primary method of Social Justice is to accuse, whether true or false, sensible or insensible, and to manipulate everything that follows into further accusations.

Sadly, this is exactly the response one would predict given that Social Justice ideology is highly aggressive, intrinsically political, and completely in conflict with science, evidence, and reason. If it were backed by science, evidence, and reason, science evidence and reason would be presented in conversation and there would be no need to call anyone names or accuse people who want to have conversations of not wanting to have conversations. The Social Justice canons would also not need to build an infrastructure that insulates itself from criticism and uses name calling and accusation as the primary tool to dispense its ideological enemies. Rather, it would encourage dialogue, conversation, and even debate. Instead, it sees discourse not as an effective means for determining truth but as yet another political project to oppress people.

Social Justice cannot continue to be taken seriously on its own terms, which it has literally made up. It must be taken seriously in terms of the threat it poses to liberal and civil society, which it is actively undermining and seeks to destroy. (...)

[zupi]

Vähän erilainen kirjoitus Lindsaylta.

A Manifesto for the Based

When Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago, gave in his Noble Lecture the credo, "Let the lie come into the world. Let it even triumph. But not through me," that was based. Not participating in transparent lies or mass delusion is based. Doing so against the madness of the following crowd is based. Nearly everything that it means to be based is either contained within or predicated upon this one trait of character.

Solzhenitsyn wrote those words as a result of his observations living in what may have been the most brutal tyranny of human history: Stalin's USSR. That simplest of refusals—the refusal to lie on command, or even to fit in—is, in the end, the summary of his observations of what kind of people had what it took to resist a totalitarian regime. Keeping your head down while you hope the unconscionable blows over, say, so you can keep your job but none of your dignity, is not based.

(...)

Though, for the moment, better conditions generally prevail in our day-to-day lives in our teetering Western liberal democratic republics, we have also found ourselves in yet another period in human history when the many millions believe—or at least pretend to believe—outright, transparent lies about the nature of reality, both social and material. What's more, our elites and the institutions they command have taken the repetition and promulgation of these lies as sure marks of both status and, believe it or not, sanity. That is, once again the lie is coming into the world, and we have been forced to ask ourselves: will it triumph?

That's an open question, and its answer depends, in turn, upon the answer to the more personal question Solzhenitsyn answered firmly in the negative. Will it come through me? The fate of the future of Western Civilization and Mankind may well hang in the balance of how that question gets answered, and by who, and how many. That is, its answer depends on how many people are willing to get based and stay that way.

The risk is in a peculiar way perverse. If lots of us get based, there's very little risk to any of us. On the other hand, if only a few of us do, the risk is immense. (...)

To me, then, there's just one option. It's time to get based and help other people get based. It's time for based nation. It's time for a based movement.

Before we begin on such an ambitious venture, however, the origin of the term "based" should be addressed forthrightly because it is profoundly limiting and, in fact, something that prevents being properly and fully based. The term arose online in talking about various ideas that might justify biological racism and referenced being unafraid to say those things because they are politically unfashionable. It arose in being intentionally, and often crudely, politically anti-correct. It arose, frankly, in crowds rightly identified as being "alt-right." One could say it has expanded from there into something mostly more commendable. (...)

Now we can begin. To be based, simply enough, begins with being willing to speak your mind and state objectively true facts about the world even when people don't like you for it. It means neither lying nor apologizing just because the crowd expects you to, least of all under the absurd implication that doing so makes you more virtuous and brave. (...)

Put another way, fitting to our contemporary circumstances, being based is the opposite of being Woke. Woke is wholly intolerant of everything but itself. It, because it is cynical of every motivation, it never acts in good faith. It brings down every mood and celebrates the worthless and the ugly so long as these take no shame in themselves for being worthless and ugly. Woke forgiveness is impossible because, to the Woke, forgiveness would justify the sin. It demands absolute conformity and tolerates no dissent. It defines hypersensitivity, elevates it as a virtue, and, as a result, is always throwing a tantrum.

Obviously, Solzhenitsyn wasn't writing about the Woke in The Gulag Archipelago, but what he was writing about was another species in the same totalitarian genus. (...)

There are, in the end, only two things that can tear such a regime down, and they are, as it happens, interrelated. They are the two most powerful weapons against tyranny in the human arsenal: telling the truth, including by refusing the lie, and laughter. Both are based, and to win both are necessary. (...)

Humor isn't necessary but is the key to being truly based. Absurdity must be exposed, and no acid is more corrosive to the absurdity of tyranny than laughter pointed in its general direction. So, while being based begins with being unapologetic in yourself and the truth, whatever anyone thinks, it does this ideally while being funny. (...)

(...)

In fact, the subversive humor of being based is what makes being based so open instead of being closed. It is by its very nature irreverent and sometimes crude, but it always punches up, as they say. (...)

To strike a more philosophical tone, being based means having common sense in a postmodern context. Like it or not, "Postmodernity" is the name for the time in which we live. It's a time of images, corporate gloss, and a certain imposed detachment from the real. (...)

To put that somewhat more seriously, the difference between being based and being Woke is the difference between laughter and shame. (...)

(...) Humor washes away the absurd in a tide of laughter and leaves behind what's real and what really matters—that's based. Shame doesn't. It just knocks everything over in its ridiculous attempt to prove that it's the only thing that isn't absurd—so not based; totally cringe, in fact. That is, humor is gentle while shame is crude, and humor is alive where shame is afraid to live. This is why the based roll with the joke. This is why the Woke laugh at nothing. It's because they have no base.

Tyranny is knocking, and we need to get based. Solzhenitsyn told us what it would take to stand up to the end of the world, and what it boils down to is being based—and being based for our times. Our times are absurd, but this doesn't diminish the threat. Still, in the end, there's nothing new under this yellow Sun, and, as ever, the truly absurd cannot possibly abide people who completely refuse to take them seriously. The future, then, belongs to the based, not to the clowns. That future is ours because the future is based.

Freedom is ours for the taking. The lies are coming into the world, and, for the moment, they have begun to triumph. Lord, though, are they funny. Being based is little more, then, than a laughing refusal to be pushed around by the preposterous. It's a refusal to go along with the crowd when the crowd has gone mad. While many people seem to realize that there is some problem, only the based realize not only that its safer and healthier to break away, but that it's also hilarious. The based aren't about to live by ridiculous lies because they'll be too busy laughing the bottom out from under them.

https://newdiscourses.com/2021/05/manifesto-for-the-based/

Heitellään vielä vähän vastaan tulleita twiittejä kyytipojaksi.

[tweet]1388860686449758215[/tweet]

[tweet]1388867044272230403[/tweet]

[tweet]1389304673065177093[/tweet]

[tweet]1389216492504428546[/tweet]

[zupi]

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/10/schools-teaching-kids-social-justice/

Why Schools Are Teaching Our Kids "Social Justice"

(...)

The mission of Critical Social Justice, to use its right name, is to "awaken" people to the so-called "realities" of systemic oppression in society, as it defines it—thus, "woke." People who are woke are people who have been trained to see systemic oppression in a particular way, which has been outlined in an otherwise obscure branch of philosophy known as Critical Theory. Speaking formally, the Woke are people who have developed a "critical consciousness" about the identity-based systems of power that are alleged to permeate and define all of society, creating profound and almost intractable injustices that must be "disrupted and dismantled" to achieve "liberation." The goal of "anti-racist," "culturally aware," and "social justice" approaches to education is to awaken a critical consciousness in our children so that they will grow up not to think critically but to think in terms of Critical Theories.

To understand why this isn't just a problem but an incredibly alarming one requires understanding how the Critical Theories in Critical Social Justice see the world. That is, you have to understand what your kids will be "woke up" to in their classrooms.

To take the issue of race, Critical Race Theory begins with the assumption that racism is ordinary in our societies and present in all interactions and social and cultural phenomena, and it is up to the Critical Race Theorist—using a Woke critical consciousness—to "make it visible" and "call it out." In Critical Race Theory, the question is not "did racism take place?" but rather, "how did racism manifest in that situation?"

Rather than learning how to do mathematics, then, your children will be taught to ask questions like how mathematics is used to maintain racial oppression—for it must, according to Critical Race Theory. This is precisely the sort of curriculum that we already see in the Ethnic Studies program in the state of Washington and its "ethnomathematics" project. Rather than focusing on the mechanics of mathematics, students will be taught to focus on the ways they can explore topics like racism and oppression through mathematics, or leaning on math as a foil that facilitates discussions on important topics—like "who it benefits" to focus on getting right answers in mathematics.

Other subjects will be similar, if not worse. A Critical Theory approach to studying American history will be dedicated to making students woke to all of the ways the United States, from its founding, has been an unjust, oppressive nation that systemically oppresses certain identity groups. (...)

Indeed, many such programs will claim that the United States was founded intentionally on genocide, slavery, and a principle of white supremacy and anti-Blackness that has never been repaired. Its legacy is white privilege and white comfort that must be challenged at every opportunity if we are ever to achieve racial equity. (...)

Bringing Critical Social Justice into our educational systems is therefore not beneficent or benign. It is a deliberate attempt to try to program our children to think in an explicitly cynical, pessimistic, and falsely sociological way about all matters relevant to identity in every possible subject, including our history and even science and mathematics. The goal is to make our children woke, to give them a critical consciousness with which they will, unlike their parents, know that the point of understanding society is to change it in a very narrow and increasingly divisive way.

Ja alla esimerkki siitä, mitä nuo harhaan johdetut ja aivopestyt, aikuisiksi (biologisessa mielessä) kasvaneet lapset sitten pyrkivät tekemään.

https://www.kansalaisaloite.fi/fi/aloite/6764

Kansalaisaloitteen otsikko
Antirasistiset strategiat ja kriittinen näkökulma opintosuunnitelmiin

(...)

Antirasistiset strategiat ja kriittinen näkökulma käsittelisi syvällisemmin esimerkiksi:

1. Rasismia käsitteenä
2. Systemaattista ja rakenteellista rasismia, joka on lainsäädännön tai erilaisten instituutioiden käytäntöjen avulla toteutettua rasismia. Mahdollisia ilmenemismuotoja ovat käytäntöihin ja sääntöihin perustuva rasismi esimerkiksi sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollossa, oppilaitoksissa tai työelämässä. Siihen kuuluu myös mm. aiheeton liiallinen huomion kiinnittäminen vähemmistöryhmien edustajiin julkisissa paikoissa virkamiesten toimesta.
3. Kulttuurierojen ymmärtämistä ja kulttuurirasismia käsittelisi uskoja ja luuloja luonteenominaisuuksista, jotka ovat läpi historian olleet sidoksissa tiettyihin "rotuihin". Kulttuurirasismilla ja "muukalaispelolla" on pitkä historia, jota tulisi kurssin yhteydessä käydä läpi.
4. Tiedostamattomia micro-aggressioita ja rasismi vähemmistöjä kohtaan
- ennakkoluulot, jotka estävät samaistumasta toisen kokemaan kipuun.
- tällaisiin tutkimuksiin perehtyminen kuten italialaistutkimus
5. Rasismin historiallinen näkökulma mm.
- orjuus
- Massamurhat
- Rotusorto
- Valkoinen ylivoima
6. Kriittinen näkökulma:

Vastuullista ajattelua, joka on valmis vuorovaikutukseen muiden kanssa. Aktiivinen yhteiskunnallinen toiminta, jossa tarkastellaan erilaisista näkökulmista kasvatuksen ja yhteiskunnan kriittistä erittelyä, sekä moraalista arviointia. Tämä näkökulma tarkastelee myös ajattelu- ja toimintavälineiden kehittelytyötä, joilla voidaan kyseenalaistaa vakiintuneita oletuksia. Näin ollen antaa myös valmiutta arvioida uudelleen omia käsityksiään ja ajattelutapoja ja myös korjata niitä. Kriittinen ajattelija tunnistaa myös käsittelemänsä asian kokoanaiskuvasta erityispiirteet.
(Lähde 9; Mikkonen, 2018)

23 095 kannatusilmoitusta...

Tuo on kyllä ehkä kaikkien aikojen pahin sananraiskaus ja kaikista naurettavin näiden wokeistien väittämistä, kun he sanovat edustavansa jonkinlaista "kriittistä ajattelua"...  Ja vieläpä oikein hakevat "vuorovaikutusta muiden kanssa"... 

[zupi]

Samaan aiheeseen liittyen parikin kirjoitusta, ja vähän muutakin.

Why Power Is Getting Woke
The point of politicizing everything is to make you forget what real politics is.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is one of the nation's top diplomats, second only to the Secretary of State.  (...)

(...) What on earth could possess America's UN ambassador to decide to broadcast the message that America is a deeply racist country down to its bones? Even if you were to accept some, or maybe even all, of what she's saying as being true, what sort of powerful incentives could convince a top diplomat to engage in a highly controversial debate that not only has nothing to do with her job, but is in fact quite literally the opposite of her job description? How did we get here?

Wokeness isn't radical, it's repressive

One thing to know about Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield is that she isn't exactly a radical activist storming the gates of power. She is power. (...)

But perhaps an even better example of this phenomenon is the very man who appointed Thomas-Greenfield: President Biden. In the nearly half century he spent in political office before assuming the presidency, Joe Biden wasn't exactly known for being a social justice crusader. (...) But that all now seems to have completely reversed: It feels as if not a day goes by where Biden isn't heard decrying the country's "systemic racism" while branding every new initiative as a step toward achieving the newly fashionable concept of "equity."

And while he might be the most high profile (and perhaps most consequential) example, Biden's overnight conversion characterizes a broader elite "awokening" that seems to have infected nearly an entire leadership class. What could explain all of it?

It's extremely common to find critics of "wokeness" and critical race theory decrying it as a radical activist- and academic-driven plot to upend the basic foundations of American society. And while it certainly does like to present itself that way, and is even believed to be exactly that by its most true believers, it's an analysis that fails to explain why every Fortune 500 company, establishment politician, media executive, and entertainer has become an evangelist for these ideas. After all, radicalism is about threatening and upending existing power structures. What we're seeing now is quite the opposite. Far from seeing these ideas as a threat, the existing power structure is enthusiastically adopting them as something of a ruling class ideology. So unless you think all of these people are critical theory sleeper cells who are just now being awakened to carry out a plot decades in the making, the more likely explanation is that not only are these ideas compatible with power, but something about them must actually lend themselves to protecting and even enhancing that power. In other words, it's an ideology that seems much more suited not to radicalism, but to the opposite: repression.

The privatization of politics

One of the most conspicuous things about woke politics is that it politicizes everything. It inserts politics into every space, interaction, and relationship. It problematizes, deconstructs, and dismantles. It calls out and it cancels. And above all, it personalizes politics. (...)

Woke politics makes politics less about what powerful people do, and more about what everyone does. (...)

(...) Maybe the point of politicizing everything is to make you forget what actual politics is?

The "awokening" of our elites is also an unburdening

(...) Where public servants once faced politics as a force for accountability, they can increasingly now passively preside over a country as it educates itself, recognizes its privilege, and "reckons" with its past. Corporations that once existed in a fundamental tension with a political sphere that had the power to regulate them now see that sphere contracted to make way for a privatized political realm that requires them only to emblazon the latest slogan on their marketing materials. Celebrities who once faced scrutiny for their impact on mass culture and can now easily plug into the latest hashtag and effortlessly assume the mantle of moral influencer.

Instead of antagonizing power and holding it to account, wokeness makes it invisible. It flattens everyone, elite and not, into fellow participants in a national religion, one in which those with power merely serve as a ceremonial priesthood whose sole responsibility is to ensure faithful observance. The great "awokening" of America's elites is also something of a great unburdening — an unburdening from the responsibilities, accountability, and scrutiny that comes with power. Ultimately, it's an unburdening of a leadership class from a country and its people. The question is: Can any country survive that?

To be continued.

https://www.inquiremore.com/p/why-power-is-getting-woke

Alla olevat jutut liittyy tähän CIA:n mainosvideoon:

[tweet]1388963034274701316[/tweet]

CIA Embraces Left-Wing Ideology, Leftists Deny That This Is Happening
   
In a mind-blowing marketing video first published on March 25, but which had escaped widespread notice until recent days, the CIA enthusiastically endorsed several key tenets of what has now indisputably become a hegemonic left/liberal ideological and rhetorical construct

(...)

Whenever they are confronted with the reality that their rhetorical stylings are being aped across the entire country's power centers, now including the Intelligence Community, left-wing activists and journalists tend to angrily disclaim any culpability. The CIA's decision to institutionally pronounce itself a wellspring of "intersectionality," they'll insist, is all fake and cynical co-optation.

However, this isn't so much a "co-optation" as it is a natural evolution of Woke Ideology's imperatives. The CIA can easily adopt something approximating an "intersectional" attitude toward racial, gender, gender identity-related oppressions and continue on with its ordinary mission. In fact, the adoption of this rhetoric could enhance its mission by strengthening its domestic cultural cachet. Say John Brennan is a true believer in intersectionality doctrine — which definitely is not out of the question — and truly believes the CIA can help carry out its goals. What then?

Asserting some discontinuity between these concepts' newfound universal popularity and left-wing activism makes no sense. Is there any more potent left-wing belief in circulation at the moment than that of "intersectional" oppressions, and their all-pervasive, defining influence on American life? All the CIA is doing is signaling its eagerness to partake in the ideological project of dismantling these alleged oppressions. In a way, this is a true victory for the Activist Left — the potency of whose beliefs are gaining purchase at a spellbinding pace, probably never more rapidly than in the past year.

But instead of interrogating why it is that the rhetorical and ideological paradigm they've relentlessly promoted fits so easily within the country's most powerful institutions, from Wall Street banks to the Big Tech monopolies to the CIA, left-wing activists and journalists will often petulantly change the subject. After I commented on the "Woke CIA" video yesterday via Twitter, hardcore radical Rage Against the Machine frontman Tom Morello came out of nowhere to accuse me of denying the "evils" of past CIA actions — such as assassinations and coups — and acting like the "real problem" with the CIA is their sudden practice of distributing so-called "woke pamphlets."

I'm reading a very illuminating book right now (not a pamphlet) that details numerous largely-forgotten brutal CIA transgressions, such as a covert 1958 mission which resulted in the bombing of a market and a church on Ambon Island, Indonesia, obliterating civilians. Anyone unfamiliar with this and other chapters in CIA history should "educate" themselves, and perhaps that will help them understand what the boldly subversive left-wing guitar player evidently doesn't — which is that "Woke Ideology" is perfectly compatible with the CIA's institutional prerogative to further entrench its own power.

That history makes it doubly absurd for liberals (and, albeit more tacitly, leftists) to have been so tolerant of CIA interventions into domestic political affairs because their short-term political objectives (disabling and ousting Trump) happened to align. Now, they seem angrier with those who point out the self-evident absurdity of this CIA marketing tactic than with the tactic itself. Maybe that's because they've been prime movers in creating the political conditions under which adopting such tactics is considered shrewd.

Liberals and leftists have to constantly run around disclaiming that their beliefs, aesthetics, and speech codes have become hegemonic because posturing as beleaguered, noble outsiders is fundamental to their self-conception. As one Twitter commenter put it to me, "My view is that the CIA has looked at the beliefs of those coming out of elite schools and decided this is how they have to pitch to them." Well... yeah.

Many don't find it interesting or worthy of comment that ideological prescriptions and rhetorical formulations once largely relegated to Tumblr and obscure academic circles have migrated to the highest levels of the US intelligence apparatus within a matter of years. They should feel free to keep screeching into the void online, while others attempt to critically evaluate this culture-upheaving phenomenon.

https://mtracey.substack.com/p/cia-embraces-left-wing-ideology-leftists

Aiheeseen liittyen, Greenwald Tuckerin haastattelussa:

[tweet]1389754812174987266[/tweet]

Heitetään vielä tämä twiittiketjukin, voi tuota wokstereiden ja valtamädän "kaunista" rakkaustarinaa...

[tweet]1389722584804102148[/tweet]

This is repulsive. The Intercept was founded during the Snowden story to defend privacy rights & oppose the security state. Now, the liberal DNC hacks who "edit" it are boasting they got personal data from Gab users & are sorting through it, doing FBI's work to find "extremists."

Bold Adversarial Journalism: serving as mouthpieces for the CIA and acting as monitoring cops for the FBI. Liberal political hacks ruin everything. The Intercept is shit.

The people who run the Intercept now had nothing to do with its founding -- they just leech off those who did -- and are authoritarian shit liberals so this is what they do. They only saving grace is that outside like 3 writers, nobody reads that rag:

[Jorma Teräsrautela]

Yksi tämän ideologian iskusana on "yhdenvertaisuus". Se on niin suosittu, että on valunut jo mainoksiinkin. DNA mainostaa nykyään olevansa "digitaalisen yhdenvertaisuuden puolesta". 50 vuotta sitten eli 1970-luvulla olisi mainostettu "digitaalista vallankumousta".

Vaan mitä se yhdenvertaisuus on. No sehän on positiivista syrjintää, parhaimmillaan.

[Lalli IsoTalo]

Tuo on kyllä ehkä kaikkien aikojen pahin sananraiskaus ja kaikista naurettavin näiden wokeistien väittämistä, kun he sanovat edustavansa jonkinlaista "kriittistä ajattelua"... 

Tämä kriittisyys periytynee Frankfurtin koulukunnan "critical theory"sta, joka siis oli kriittinen vain ja pelkästään
- kaikenlaista sivistystä,
- länsimaista kulttuuria,
- rationaalisuutta,
- tervettä järkeä,
- johdonmukaisuutta,
- standardeja,
- faktoja,
- selkeää viestintää,
- ongelmanratkaisua  ja
- tieteellistä ajattelua kohtaan.

Kyseessä on siis yksinkertaisesti kaiken järjen hylkääminen, ja taantuminen eläimen tasolle.

Tämä frankfurttilaisten "kriittisyys" taas on täydellinen vastakohta oikealle "critical thinking"ille, josta wikipediassa ei ole edes suomenkielistä artikkelia!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. ... definitions ... generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. 

[zupi]

Wokemädätystä ja kommunismin ihannointia joka helvetin paikassa.

[tweet]1390828488949518337[/tweet]

SCOOP: The Walt Disney Corporation claims that America was founded on "systemic racism,"  encourages employees to complete a "white privilege checklist," and separates minorities into racially-segregated "affinity groups."

I've obtained internal documents that will shock you.

According to a trove of whistleblower materials, Disney has launched a "diversity and inclusion" program, called "Reimagine Tomorrow," which includes trainings on "systemic racism," "white privilege," "white fragility," "white saviors," "microaggressions," and "antiracism."

Disney claims that America has a "long history of systemic racism and transphobia" and tells employees they must "take ownership of educating yourself about structural anti-Black racism" and "not rely on your Black colleagues to educate you," which is "emotionally taxing."

White employees are told to "work through feelings of guilt, shame, and defensiveness to understand what is beneath them and what needs to be healed." They must "listen with empathy [to] Black colleagues" and "not question or debate Black colleagues' lived experience."

Disney tells employees they should reject "equality," or "equal treatment," and instead strive for "equity," or "the equality of outcome." They must "reflect" on America's "racist infrastructure" and "think carefully about whether or not [their] wealth" is derived from racism.

Disney sponsored the creation of a "21-Day Racial Equity and Social Justice Challenge" and recommended it to employees. The challenge begins with a lesson on "systemic racism" and tells participants they have "all been raised in a society that elevates white culture over others."

Next, participants are asked to complete a "white privilege checklist": "I am white," I am heterosexual," "I am a man," "I still identity as the gender I was born in," "I have never been raped," "I don't rely on public transportation," and "I have never been called a terrorist."

Finally, participants are told they must "pivot" from "white dominant culture" to "something different." The document claims that "competition," "individualism," "timeliness," and "comprehensiveness" are "white dominant" values that "perpetuate white supremacy culture."

Disney recommends that employees read a how-to guide called "75 Things White People Can Do for Racial Justice." The article tells readers to "defund the police," "participate in reparations," "decolonize your bookshelf," and "find and join a local 'white space.'"

Finally, Disney has launched racially-segregated "affinity groups" for minority employees, with the goal of achieving "culturally-authentic insights." The Latino group was named "Hola," the Asian group was named "Compass," and the black group was named "Wakanda."

[tweet]1390838847840346114[/tweet]

[tweet]1390869716277809155[/tweet]

[tweet]1390873161353334785[/tweet]

Tuleeko jollekin muullekin mieleen lause "et omista mitään mutta olet onnellinen"... Tai itket ja olet onnellinen...

[zupi]

SCOOP: The Walt Disney Corporation claims that America was founded on "systemic racism,"  encourages employees to complete a "white privilege checklist," and separates minorities into racially-segregated "affinity groups."

I've obtained internal documents that will shock you.

(...)

[tweet]1392192481886806018[/tweet]

[tweet]1392225593014448129[/tweet]

[zupi]

Tällä tavalla USA:ssa.

[tweet]1393750362235064327[/tweet]

Space Force officer relieved of post after denouncing Marxist ideology and critical race theory in military: Report

A commander in the United States Space Force was apparently relieved from his post after appearing on a podcast to promote his book, which asserts a neo-Marxist agenda is transforming military culture and policy.

"Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, Space Operations Command commander, relieved Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier of command of the 11th Space Warning Squadron, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, May 14, due to loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead," the Space Force said in a statement to the Washington Examiner.

(...)

Lohmeier self-published Irresistible Revolution: Marxism's Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military this week. The book, according to the description, explores the "impact of a neo-Marxist agenda" and the manner in which the "Black Lives Matter movement, anti-racism, postmodernism, [and] political correctness" affect the national security of the United States.

Lohmeier said that he had informed his superiors, public affairs staff, and lawyers for the military about the book prior to publication, but it was not subject to a pre-publication review.

(...)

"My intent never has been to engage in partisan politics. I have written a book about a particular political ideology (Marxism) in the hope that our Defense Department might return to being politically nonpartisan in the future as it has honorably done throughout history," he told Military.com.

The Air Force Academy graduate appeared on the podcast Information Operation last week to publicize the book, in which he criticized Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's diversity and inclusion "agenda."

"I don't demonize the man, but I want to make it clear to both him and every service member this agenda — it will divide us. It will not unify us, " Lohmeier said.

(...)

"The diversity, inclusion and equity industry and the trainings we are receiving in the military ... is rooted in critical race theory, which is rooted in Marxism," Lohmeier said.  (...)

Lohmeier added that conservatives in the military who are willing to voice their opinions are painted as "extremists."

"What you see happening in the U.S. military at the moment is that if you're a conservative, then you're lumped into a group of people who are labeled extremists, if you're willing to voice your views. And if you're aligned with the Left, then it's OK to be an activist online because no one's gonna hold you accountable," he said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/space-force-officer-relieved-from-post-after-criticism-critical-race-theory-marxism

Ja tällä tavalla UK:ssa.

[tweet]1393534963476221957[/tweet]

Student investigated for saying women must have vaginas

A law student who said that women have vaginas and are not as physically strong as men is being investigated by her university.

Disciplinary action is being taken against Lisa Keogh, 29, over "offensive" and "discriminatory" comments that she made during lectures at Abertay University, Dundee.

The mature student was reported by younger classmates after she said women were born with female genitals and that "the difference in physical strength of men versus women is a fact". The complaints have prompted a formal investigation into her conduct.

Keogh, a final-year student, fears that any sanction could end her dream of becoming a human rights lawyer. (...)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/student-investigated-for-saying-women-must-have-vaginas-3tnl0f9wb
(loput maksumuurin takana)

No, Suomessahan tuollaisesta toiminnasta olisi varmaan vielä saanut valtakunnansyyttäjänkin kimppuunsa.

Edit. Ja tällaista Kanadassa. Täysin sairasta sakkia. Mutta lapsethan ne tietenkin ihan itse ja oma-aloitteisesti tekevät sellaisen päätelmän, että oikeastaan he ovatkin toista sukupuolta, ja tätä päätelmää kaikkien pitää kunnioittaa, vaikka lapsista onkin kyse...   

[tweet]1393990442400636929[/tweet]

A school counsellor in Canada has been indoctrinating a 13-year-old girl into believing she's trans.

She continues to try to undermine the parents and communicate with the girl, even after dad talked to the school principal, revoking permission for her to talk to their daughter.

The girl told the school counsellor she does not want to talk to her.

Not satisfied, the counsellor tried to officially change the girl's screen name for all of the online classrooms.

That didn't work either, so now the counsellor has gone and changed the name of the school's GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) to 'Wellness Group' so that parents won't know their child is part of it.

Incredibly, the school counsellor also reached out to the girl after this to give her the number for the Kids Help Phone.

I have spoken at length with the mom. She's as sweet and kind and supportive as can be.

The parents have been completely blindsided by all of this.

This is a 13-year-old child once again being confused by school indoctrination and pressure to alienate her from her parents.

The daughter's 'non-binary' friend has stated she wants to curb-stomp the parents.

The parents have hired a proper therapist, and the school principal has been made aware of the online school groups where this grooming is occurring.

Future attempts from this school counsellor to communicate with their daughter will be met with legal action.

https://twitter.com/christophelston/status/1393990442400636929

[zupi]

En tiedä, miten paljon uutta tuossa on Hommalaisille, mutta ihan hyvä ketju joka tapauksessa.

[tweet]1393917900264820737[/tweet]

1/13] The Swedes have a word, "fredsskadade", meaning "injured by peace", where a society has been prosperous & peaceful for so long that it somehow hurts them. Handicaps them. Debilitates their thinking.

2/13] Those immigrants are behaving badly? Or simply behaving according to their cultural norms? It's not that those cultural norms are wrong/illiberal/oppressive. It's that WE are oppressive. We must have done something to cause them to behave this way.

3/13] It's not uncommon thinking. Pelle Neroth Taylor describes this thinking in his documentary "Dying to be Multicultural" (on YouTube). Göran Adamson in his book "The Trojan Horse: A Leftist critique of Multiculturalism in the West".

4/13] The real world (sexist cultures, racist cultures, religious extremism, tribalism) hit Sweden hard. And they had no tools to deal with it other than to blame themselves. And so they did, severely.

5/13] The Woke are particularly prone to this thinking. Their demographic in the US/Canada often mirrors Swedes as a whole: native-born, middle/upper-middle class, university educated, privileged, sheltered, naïve. Romanticizers of third-world cultures they know little about.

6/13] The Woke are seldom immigrants from 2nd or 3rd-world countries.

But the anti-Woke often are: @seerutkchawla, Flag of India @ayaan, Flag of Somalia @Gadsaad. Flag of Lebanon They have not been fredsskadade, injured by peace, like so many in the West. They understand the virtues of The West, of true liberalism.

7/13] Very few of The Woke have spent any significant time outside their own country. Sure they studied abroad in London & spent a week in rural Guatemala marveling at the colorful indigenous clothing and exotic food. But did they spend years? Almost never.

8/13] Their cosmopolitanism is a "parochial cosmopolitanism" (@DouglasKMurray). A cultural cheerleading. Otherwise they'd see that the West as it truly is: the least oppressive societies in the the history of the world. Societies that needs to be improved, not torn down.

9/13] And certainly not "Patriarchal" or "rape cultures". You want a patriarchal rape culture? Go to rural Pakistan. Or rural Guatemala. Or indigenous Guatemala for that matter.

10/13] The Woke won't do that. They reserve their criticism for "the powerful". Which damages the cause of truly oppressed women. Read @YasMohammedxx's "Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam" or @Ayaan's Prey: Immigration, Islam, and the Erosion of Women's Rights".

11/13] But for The Woke, it's only partially about helping the oppressed. It's more about virtue, and the new #VirtueCulture. Hence their silence on Islam, women in Muslim countries, immigrant patriarchal norms, Islam-rooted anti-Semitism in Europe, etc.

12/13] For all their talk about "diversity", The Woke are an enormously non-diverse group: university-educated, privileged mostly-White folks from Western countries with little experience with the real world.

But with lots of big ideas about the real world.

13/13] And those big ideas – from naïve, insular, parochial cosmopolitans – are going to do a lot of damage.

https://twitter.com/WokeTemple/status/1393917900264820737

[zupi]

Parempi myöhään kuin ei milloinkaan... Jari Ehrnrooth tilittää wokeismista.

https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/varokaa-tata-uusvasemmistolaista-ansaa/ (23.3.)

Jari Ehrnrooth: Varokaa tätä uusvasemmistolaista ansaa
Kirjoittajan mukaan virheellinen tulkinta vääristää liberaalia demokratiaa.

(...)

Tasa-arvo-käsitteen absurdit laajennukset on silti syytä ottaa vakavasti, sillä ne kasvavat esiin lännen sisäisestä aateperinnöstä, joka vääristää liberaalia demokratiaa, pahimmillaan pehmeän totalitarismin asteelle.

(...)

Kanta on täsmälleen päinvastainen kuin oli Martin Luther Kingillä, joka kuuluisassa puheessaan I Have a Dream (1963) pyysi, että häntä ja muita mustia ei kohdeltaisi mustina, vaan tasa-arvoisina ihmisinä.

(...)

Mustien, naisten, seksuaalivähemmistöjen ja luonnon puolesta puhujat hyökkäävät länsimaista "sortojärjestelmää" vastaan aivan kuten marxilaiset muinoin proletariaatin puolesta. Työväestön vaurastuttua sen kauna ja katkeruus laantuivat, joten vasemmistolaisen etujoukon oli etsittävä uusia "sortavien rakenteiden" uhreja edustettavaksi.

1990-luku on jäämässä poikkeukselliseksi suvantokaudeksi tämän liikkeen historiassa. Kylmän sodan päätyttyä Neuvostoliiton lakkauttamiseen juhlittiin liberaalin demokratian ja markkinatalouden kiistatonta voittoa. Vapaiden ja vastuullisten yksilöiden tasa-arvoliike oli voittanut ja arvoeroja tasaava sosialismi kuollut ja kuopattu.

Ilo oli ennenaikainen. Tällä vuosituhannella totaalidemokraattiset liikkeet ja liberaalisosialistinen ajattelu ovat louhineet rotua, sukupuolta, seksuaalisia suuntauksia, luontoa, ekosysteemejä ja eläinkuntaa tuloksekkaasti. Vasemmistoaktivismi on löytänyt valtaisia uhripääomia poliittisen mellastuksen perusteiksi.

Valistusfilosofian ja tieteen kasvatille tämän liikkeen uusimmat dokumentit vaikuttavat julmalta pilalta. (...)

Vastaavanlaista, uskomattoman takapajuista ja rasistista ajattelua edustaa Minna Salami, joka haluaa haastaa europatriarkaalisen lineaarisen ja mitattavan tiedon mustan afrikkalaisnaisen syklisellä ja tunnepitoisella aistitiedolla. Hurjaa. Jäämme odottamaan maailmaa mullistavia tuloksia. Oletettavasti mustan naistiedon lähettiläällä on rankkaa, jos tiedostaa (woke!) käyttävänsä lineaarisesti ajattelevan valkoisen miehen kehittämää tietokonetta ja kännykkää. Toivottavasti hänen musta aistitietonsa kuitenkin hyväksyy valkoisen europatriarkaalisen tieteen kehittämän koronarokotteen. ( )

Tasa-arvo tarkoittaa vain yksilöitä

Haluaisin vain nauraa näille uusvasemmistolaisen liikehdinnän yhä hupsummille ilmiöille, mutta historioitsijan vaistoni sanoo, että joudumme ottamaan ne vakavasti. Sosiaalisen median avulla tämä arvoyhtenäisyyttä vaativa pehmeä woke-totalitarismi voi saavuttaa samanlaisen kulttuurisen hegemonian kuin uusvasemmistolainen marxismi 1960-70 -luvuilla.

Pelkästään tämän uhkan vuoksi haluan varoittaa liberaalin demokratian ystäviä älyllisestä ja loogisesta ansasta, jonka uusvasemmistolainen marxismi, antirasismi, feminismi ja syväekologinen liike ovat nimenomaan tasa-arvokäsitteen avulla meille virittäneet.

Välttääksemme ansan meidän on muistettava kaksi käsitteen rajausta.

Ensinnäkin tasa-arvo voi koskea vain yksilöitä. (...) Ei ole muita tällaisia subjekteja kuin ihmisyksilöt. Ryhmät ja ominaisuudet eivät ole subjekteja. Niiden tasa-arvosta puhuminen on harhauttavaa ideologista julistusta.

Toiseksi yhtä tärkeä on rajaus, että vapaiden ja vastuullisten ihmisyksilöiden perustuslaillinen tasa-arvoisuus nojaa abstrahoituun ihmisyyteen eli pienimpään yhteiseen nimittäjäämme. Sukupuolella, iällä, rodulla, siviilisäädyllä, uskonnolla, seksuaalisella suuntauksella, etnisellä taustalla tai sillä, voidaanko mitään näitä tai muita vastaavia ominaisuuksia edes määrittää, ei ole mitään merkitystä yksilön tasa-arvoisuuden kannalta.

Liberaalissa demokraattisessa tasavallassa me vain määräämme, että kaikki ihmiset ovat heitä yhdistävän ihmisyytensä (ihmislajiin kuulumisensa) nojalla tasa-arvoiset. (...)

Tasa-arvokäsitteen vääristyminen alkaa heti, kun sitä aletaan nurinkurisesti soveltaa juuri niihin ominaisuuksiin, joka erottavat ihmisiä. Silloin siirrytään luonnollisten, sosiaalisten ja kulttuuristen arvoerojen tasaukseen, joka on liberaalidemokratian vastainen, yleensä joko sosiaalidemokraattinen tai liberaalisosialistinen hanke. Juuri tämän liikkeen aallot nyt lyövät taas korkeina.

Vasemmisto tarvitsee ideologian

Mihin vasemmistolainen totaalidemokraattinen suuntaus tarvitsee tasa-arvokäsitteen vinon ja vääristävän tulkinnan?

Vastaus on ilmeinen ja toistuu poliittisissa uutisissa päivittäin: Koska muuten vasemmistolta puuttuisi ideologinen perusta, jonka avulla ihmisryhmien ja yksilöiden eroista juontuvaa kaunaa ja katkeruutta voidaan kanavoida poliittiseksi liikkeeksi. Siksi puhutaan sukupuolten tasa-arvosta, rotujen tasa-arvosta, mahdollisuuksien tasa-arvosta ynnä muusta sellaisesta, joka on täysin vailla mieltä, sillä ihmisyksilöthän ovat tasa-arvoisia pelkästään ihmislajiin kuulumisen nojalla, muihin ominaisuuksiin tai mahdollisuuksiin katsomatta.

Vasemmiston puheenparressa toistuu tiuhaan eriarvoisuus, jota kunnon totaalidemokraatti tietysti löytää aina ja kaikkialta (paitsi sieltä mistä liberaalidemokratia sen poistaa eli lainsäädännöstä ja oikeusvaltiosta).  Älykkyyteen, kyvykkyyteen, menestykseen, vaurauteen ja terveyteen liittyvät erot ovat sosiaalidemokraateille ja liberaalisosialisteille loputon "eriarvoisuuksien ja vääryyksien" työmaa ja propagandan lähde.

Filosofisesti katsoen tämä jakobiininen asenne on kuitenkin vailla loogista perustaa pyrkiessään poistamaan juuri ne erot, joista elinvoimainen luonto ja kulttuuri muodostuvat.

Esimerkiksi hyvesignaloinnin peruskauraksi muodostunut "mahdollisuuksien tasa-arvo" kuulostaa monista varmasti hienolta idealta, mutta mitä se voisi käytännössä tarkoittaa? Halutaan siis taata kaikille samat mahdollisuudet erilaisista lähtökohdista ja taustoista huolimatta.

Minä kannatan hyvin pitkälle maksutonta koulutusta, joka laadukkaasti järjestettynä parantaa kansakunnan sivistystasoa ja vahvistaa demokratiaa. Mutta ei se mitenkään voi luoda "mahdollisuuksien tasa-arvoa", koska ei sitä voi olla olemassakaan, ellei poisteta perinnöllisiä ja kasvatuksellisia arvoeroja. Näiden arvoerojen poistaminen johtaisi kauhistuttaviin seurauksiin. Geneettisten älykkyys- ja lahjakkuuserojen tasaaminen lakkauttaisi lajin elinvoimaisuuden, ja tarkemmin ajatellen sama koskee kasvatuksellisia eroja, koska niiden tasaaminen lakkauttaisi kulttuurin elinvoimaisuuden. (...)

Oltakoon siis tarkkoina tämän tasa-arvokäsitteen kanssa. Se on loistava individualistinen idea niin kauan kuin sitä ei sotketa totaalidemokraattiseen arvotasaukseen, joka on liberaalia demokratiaa uhkaava kollektivistinen vitsaus.

Minusta sivistykseen ja tietoon nojaavan liberaalidemokraattisen oikeistopuolueen tehtävänä on puolustaa vapaiden ja vastuullisten yksilöiden tasa-arvoa samalla, kun torjutaan tämän kultaakin kalliimman käsitteen väärinkäyttö älyllisesti ja loogisesti kestämättömillä tavoilla.

(...)

Niin, ei sitä nykyvasemmistoa turhaan sanota vihavasemmistoksi (ainakin itse sanon...). Koko poppoon olemassaolo ja valta perustuu eri ihmisryhmien väliseen vihaan, mitä vihavasemmisto itse nykyisin väkisin tuottaa ja lietsoo. Ilman tuota vihaa kyseinen paskajengi häviäisi saman tien historian hämäriin. Se, miksi Ehrnrooth kirjoittelee tästä kokkarien julkaisussa, ja miksi kokkarien julkaisu yleensä julkaisee tämän, jää itselleni vähän hämärän peittoon. Nykykokkarit kun täysillä kannattavat wokeismia, välillä yrittäen jopa päästä vihavasurien edelle tässä asiassa. Kun taustaryhmät ilmeisesti näkevät sen omien tavoitteidensa kannalta hyödylliseksi.

[zupi]

Sattui vastaan ihan mielenkiintoinen twitter-tili, Intiasta lähtöisin oleva, nykyisin ilmeisesti Lontoossa asuva, anti-woke vasuri psykoterapeutti. Ajattelin pistää tähän pikku kokoelman mimmin viimeaikaisista twiiteistä. Ihan hyvää kamaa woke-saastasta, jonka ilmeisestikin tuntee varsin hyvin.

(...)

Jatkoa edelliseen.

https://twitter.com/seerutkchawla

University "safe spaces" are known to include cookies, colouring books, bubbles, play-doh, calming music, pillows, blankets, and one even had a video of frolicking puppies.

That's not a "safe space", it's a nursery.
4:07 AM · May 24, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Whatever is the polar opposite of Stoicism is the culture we're living in.

Fragilism.
6:43 AM · May 23, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Jonathan Haidt's work blows the church of trauma out of the water.

Coddling, placating & endlessly soothing makes people worse not better.
10:50 PM · May 22, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Considering the genocidal horrors that have been perpetrated in the name of communism- I'm amazed every single time I see a hammer & sickle in someone's bio.

How on earth can you be proud of that?
2:00 AM · May 20, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

This idea that 'communism wasn't done properly before' is very disturbing.

It indicates hubris, naivety & narcissism because the implication is that 'if I did it it would be done properly'- someone who thinks like that is exactly the sort of person who would turn into a monster.
12:13 AM · May 22, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Ylläolevaan liittyen:

[tweet]1395868484727365635[/tweet]

There are growing numbers of people who:
-just can't think critically
-are incapable of handling disagreement
-seem extremely emotionally unstable
-are highly entitled
-see themselves as victims (even if not victimised)

This appears to be a contagion.
3:27 AM · May 22, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Collectivism appeals to people who secretly wish to abandon all personal responsibility.
5:43 AM · May 21, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

What sort of a society 'educates' their children to hate themselves, hate society, believe they're being oppressed & think communism is the answer?

A very sick one.
6:46 AM · May 20, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Unsolicited advice: buy a hard copy of a dictionary, don't rely solely on the internet.

Definitions are being altered to accommodate wokeness.
5:21 PM · May 19, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

A society that makes identity more important than class talks about a literal Prince & his feelings of 'oppression'.

A Prince.
6:42 PM · May 15, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

"My truth" and "lived experience" are the same thing.

Glorified opinions.
2:33 AM · May 16, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

We're overrun with toxic compassion, but so short on real empathy.
7:26 PM · May 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Wokeness doesn't allow for autonomy or agency. You aren't allowed to make up your own mind or choose a position.

It's doctrine is set up to force you into a position: adherent or enemy.
4:50 AM · May 11, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Tämän toteutuksesta Viha-Raija on mielestäni oikein hyvä esimerkki.

So many people seem shocked to discover that life is really hard, they incorrectly assess this as an aberration & then find things to assign blame to.
6:16 AM · May 10, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Just the fact that we have to keep debating whether 2+2 actually = 4 is a sign of how divorced from reality things have gotten.
1:39 AM · May 10, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Reducing human beings to our biological functions like birthing or bleeding robs us of our personhood.

It's very dehumanising.
9:16 PM · May 8, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Why are we allowed to observe sex differences in animals but have to pretend they don't exist in humans?
4:04 AM · May 8, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Both sexes have a 'toxic' side, but it's only socially acceptable to talk about one.
10:27 PM · May 6, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Unhealthy masculinity might be 'toxic', but healthy masculinity is a beautiful thing. It looks like brotherhood, loyalty, courage, healthy aggression, protectiveness, & strength.
7:56 PM · May 6, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Please spend one year in India before you tell me Britain is a patriarchy.
3:39 AM · May 5, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Some facts for the people who believe all men are oppressors:
-Homeless population is 95% men
-97% of people who die at work are men
-More men drop out of university
-95.5% of the prison population are men
-Suicide rates for men are 3x higher than women
3:02 AM · May 5, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

-If you're white, male & working class you're the least likely person to go to university
-30,000 more women than men are enrolled at universities
-Male victims of CSA & rape get the least help
-International forced labour laws protect everyone except men
3:02 AM · May 5, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Instead of alleviating mental health stigma, we've created a 'wellness stigma'.

It's more socially acceptable to be struggling, than to be functional & well.
10:50 PM · May 3, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Identity politics doesn't work socially, it doesn't increase sensitivity it decreases it & creates tribes.

Treat everyone as an individual; case by case basis.
12:49 AM · May 3, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

There are many 'intellectuals' who are educated past their intellectual ability. That's why they make no sense.
9:36 PM · May 2, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

[zupi]

Naulan kantaan, lyhyesti ja ytimekkäästi.

[tweet]1397684422795698184[/tweet]

Shant Mesrobian@ShantMM

The point of wokeness is to create racial division. It is a self-fulfilling ideology. Woke people crave racial strife more than anyone else. It gives them meaning and purpose. It creates the kind of society they pretend to be fighting against.

1:41 AM · May 27, 2021·Twitter Web App

Kuten tämäkin.

[tweet]1397774952682696709[/tweet]

Seerut K. Chawla@seerutkchawla

Wokenesss is good example of how people high in agreeableness can be extremely aggressive when emboldened by a group.

7:41 AM · May 27, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Ettei menisi ihan twitteröinniksi.

https://newdiscourses.com/2021/05/five-ugly-truths-about-critical-race-theory/

Five Ugly Truths About Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory is currently getting a ton of attention on the national and international stage, which is long overdue, but there are also many misconceptions about it. Here are five questions that many people are asking about Critical Race Theory along with straight answers, explanations, and a raft of proofs from the Critical Race Theory literature itself. My hope is that people will be able to use these proofs to show people that Critical Race Theory is every bit as bad as its critics contend.

(...)

Question: Is Critical Race Theory racist?

Answer: Yes.

Critical Race Theory begins by asserting the importance of social significance of racial categories, rejecting colorblindness, equality, and neutrality, and advocating for discrimination meant to "level the playing field." These things lead it to reproduce and enact racism in practice. It also explicitly says that all white people are either racist or complicit in the system of racism (so, racist) by virtue of benefiting from privileges that they cannot renounce.

Examples:

(...)

"Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law." From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, first edition, p. 3.

(...)

Question: Does Critical Race Theory advance the vision and activism of the Civil Rights Movement?

Answer: No.

Critical Race Theory refers to that vision as "traditional approaches to civil rights" and calls it into question. The Civil Rights Movement called for living up to the foundational promises of the United States (and other free nations) and incrementally changing the system so that those original ideals were met. Critical Race Theory rejects incrementalism in favor of revolution. It rejects the existing system and demands replacing it with its own. It rejects the liberal order and all that goes with it as being part of the system which must be dismantled and replaced. It is therefore fundamentally different than the Civil Rights Movement (and is explicitly anti-liberal and anti-equality).

Examples:

(...)

Question: Does Critical Race Theory say that all white people are racist?

Answer: Yes.

More specifically, Critical Race Theory says that all white people are either racist or that they are complicit in a "system of racism" (so, racist) that they wittingly or unwittingly uphold to their own benefit unless they are "actively antiracist" (and usually even then). Those benefits of "whiteness" are labeled "white privilege" in general and are said to be outside of the scope of things that white people can intentionally renounce. The most they can do is "strive to be less white" and to become aware of and condemn "whiteness" as a system.

Examples:

(...)

"Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent." From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, first edition, pp. 79–80.

"...a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy." From White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, by Robin DiAngelo, p. 149.

(...)

Question: Is Critical Race Theory Marxist?

Answer: Yes and no.

It is accurate to say that Critical Race Theory is mostly Marxian but not specifically Marxist. It is more accurately adapted from neo-Marxism, which is in turn adapted from Marxism.

The main difference is that Marxism is concerned primarily with economic class and rejects racial categories in favor of workers' solidarity. What this means is that Critical Race Theory operates like Marxism but using race instead of economic class as the line of "social stratification," above which people are "privileged" or "oppressors" and below which people are "marginalized" or "oppressed." This social order is assumed in Critical Race Theory as "the ordinary state of affairs" and analyzed in the same way Marx analyzed across class stratification. Namely, Marx's "conflict theory" (a.k.a. "critical philosophy," so Critical Theory of Race, i.e., Critical Race Theory) is the tool for analyzing society, which is assumed to be totally racialized (by white people).

(...)

Examples:

(...)

"As the reader will see, critical race theory builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legal studies and radical feminism, to both of which it owes a large debt. It also draws from certain European philosophers and theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci and Jacques Derrida, as well as from the American radical tradition exemplified by such figures as Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black Power and Chicano movements of the sixties and early seventies." From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, first edition, p. 4.

(...)

Question: Is Critical Race Theory an analytical tool for understanding race and racism?

Answer: No, not really (there's a tiny sliver of yes here, in a misleading sense).

Critical Race Theory describes itself as a movement of activists and scholars. This is not exactly what one would expect from a mere "analytical tool."

More accurately, Critical Race Theory is a worldview, not a means of analysis. Critical Race Theory begins from the underlying operating assumptions that race is constantly being imposed by a "white supremacist" society ("systemic racism") and that racism is therefore the ordinary state of affairs in society. It believes further that racism is effectively impossible to eradicate within the existing "white supremacist" system and therefore that it has merely hidden itself better, when it seems to be diminished or less impactful. Critical Race Theory is the tool that allows the people who have awakened to a "Critical Consciousness of race" (i.e., Critical Race Theorists) to detect hidden racism in everything. This is a way of viewing the world, however, not a way of analyzing the world as it is.

Examples:

(...)

[Radio]

Valaisevaa. Ei kommunismin aave ole mihinkään kadonnut. Vallankumoukseen tähtäävä väkivaltainen joukko ei enää synny työväenluokasta. Nyt on valjastettu aatteen paloon värilliset ja feministit.

[zupi]

Bidenin mädättäessä monet USAn osavaltiot ovat säätäneet tai ovat säätämässä omia lakejaan CRT-hulluuden (=kaikkien marxilaisten paskateorioiden) kieltämiseksi. Montanassa ei ilmeisesti tällaista edes tarvita, kun osavaltion AG / "oikeusministeri" päätti, että CRT:n tuputtaminen on laitonta.

Mitenköhän suuri osuus suomalaisista on muuten samaa mieltä kuin Montanan AG (vaikka lakipykälät ovat tietenkin vähän erilaisia). Ja miten suuri osuus suomalaisista kuitenkin äänestää muita puolueita kuin Persuja... 

(...)

D. CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND "ANTIRACISM"

(...)

Antiracism therefore assigns immutable negative characteristics to individuals solely based upon their race or ethnicity. And it manages to frame any philosophical disagreement or objection to this assignment as—you guessed it—racism.

But accepting antiracism's premises is only half the program. To avoid being racist, one must also affirmatively participate in antiracism's prescribed social action:

We can be led to believe that racism is only about individual mindsets and actions, yet racist policies also contribute to our polarization. While individual choices are damaging, racist ideas in policy have a wide-spread impact by threatening the equity of our systems and the fairness of our institutions. To create an equal society, we must commit to making unbiased choices and being antiracist in all aspects of our lives.22

The driving force behind CRT and antiracism is the complete and total acceptance of a specific worldview—one that encompasses very specific notions about history, philosophy, sociology, and public policy. Being a so-called "antiracist" requires individuals to accept these premises and advocate for specific policy proposals. Individuals who do not comply cannot truly be "antiracist," and are, therefore, considered racist.

By its own terms, antiracism excludes individuals who merely advocate for the neutral legal principles of the Constitution, or who deny or question the extent to which white supremacy continues to shape our institutions. To that end, no one can be antiracist who does not act to eliminate the vestiges of white supremacy, i.e., embrace the specific public policy proposals of CRT and antiracism. For example, critics have suggested that there is one, and only one, correct stance on standardized testing, drug legalization, Medicare for All, and even the capital gains tax rate.23

This paradigm is conveniently constructed "like a mousetrap."24 Disagreement with any aspect becomes irrefutable evidence of its premises of systemic racism, bias, fragility, or white supremacy. In short, it is a conclusion in search of a methodology—one that eschews the bedrock principles of natural justice and abdicates fundamental concepts such as individual agency and autonomy.

(...)

Before turning to the legal analysis, I note the challenge of dealing with terms like "antiracism"—which are susceptible to different and evolving meanings. For example, the CRT and "antiracism" movements demonstrate that although "racism" is widely understood and accepted as an epithet, it encompasses vastly different meanings for different people.59 The gravamen of CRT and antiracism's theories, however, rely on the popular shibboleths of "systemic," "institutional," or "structural" racism. A minimal investigation into these claims exposes them as hollow rhetorical devices devoid of any legally sufficient rationale for purposes of civil rights law, as well as a threat to stability of our institutions.

There is no better example of this than the September 2020 open letter from Christopher Eisgruber, President of Princeton University, admitting that his institution is and for decades has been "racist."60 He notoriously alleged "[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereo-types, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies."61 He further admitted that "[r]acist assumptions ... remain embedded in structures of the University itself."62 The U.S. Department of Education was rightly alarmed by these serious revelations and immediately opened an investigation into the racism at Princeton.63 Particularly concerning was that Princeton might have repeatedly made knowingly false assurances regarding nondiscrimination and equal opportunity to the Department in exchange for federal monies, not to mention similar statements to students, parents, and consumers.64

In the face of this investigation, however, Princeton responded that—although it is systemically, institutionally, and structurally racist—it does not actually commit discrimination in violation of federal law.65 Despite its claims that widespread racism permeated throughout every aspect of campus, it asserted that no one employed by the University had engaged in or was engaging in any discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The Department concluded its investigation by stating that President Eisgruber "knowingly and intentionally spoke falsely, making a factually baseless ritual confession and not an empirically grounded description of campus reality."

(...)

E. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

(...)

The term "antiracism" appears reasonable and innocuous on its face. After all, our Constitution, our laws, and nearly all our citizens are "antiracism." But "antiracism," as a name for Kendi's and DiAngelo's all-encompassing worldview, is an Orwellian rhetorical weapon.67 It does not simply mean the opposition of differential treatment based on race. According to Kendi's How to Be an Antiracist, "[t]he only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination ... The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." As I discuss in greater detail below, Kendi's description is correct: antiracism demands race-based discrimination.

But first let me state the obvious. Committing racial discrimination in the name of ending racial discrimination is both illogical and illegal. (...)

To assist schools and other governmental entities with compliance, what follows is a list of widely reported "antiracist" and CRT-related activities that I conclude violate federal and state law. Though hostile environment claims are based on the totality of the circumstances and will likely depend on a particular case's facts, I have identified several bright line rules. They fall under three prohibited categories (which often overlap): racial segregation, race stereotyping, and race scapegoating. These concepts violate civil rights laws because they constitute racial harassment and/or require authority figures to engage in activities that result in different treatment on the basis of race.

(...)

Schools may not use race when administering their academic programs. This includes grading students differently or apply different grading criteria to students based on race. Neither schools nor instructors nor guest speakers may have students participate in class or complete assignments on the basis of their race. Schools also may not discipline students differently on the basis of race. Other government entities and employers, similarly, may not segregate employees on the basis of race or treat them differently on the basis of race.

Government entities may not engage in racial stereotyping, which means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or to an individual because of his or her race. (...)

Prohibited race stereotyping includes all exercises that ascribe specific characteristics or qualities to all members of a racial group, particularly when participation in such exercises is compulsory or acceptance of certain stereotypes is required as part of the grading criteria. Schools, other government, entities, and employers may not use materials that assert that one race is inherently superior or inferior to an-other. Individuals may not be forced participate in "privilege walks" that treat students differently based on race. Individuals may not be forced to admit privilege or punished for failing to do so. Members of certain races cannot be forced to "reflect", "deconstruct," or "confront" their racial identities or be instructed to be "less white" (or less of any other race, ethnicity, or national origin).

(...)

Finally, government entities such as public schools, public colleges and universities, and government agencies are subject to the First Amendment. The First Amendment prevents the government from restricting protected speech, but it also prevents compelled speech. (...)

Trainings, exercises, or assignments which force students or employees to admit, accept, affirm, or support controversial concepts such as privilege, culpability, identity, or status, constitute compelled speech. (...)

(...)

https://media.dojmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/AGO-V58-O1-5.27.21-FINAL.pdf

[zupi]

Jälleen yksi kirjoitus CRT:stä ja sen totalitaristisesta perusluonteesta. Ei tosin kannata takertua tuohon CRT termiin, käytännössä tässä puhutaan kaikista näistä woke-hullutuksista, intersektionaaliset feminismit ja queer-tutkimukset mukaan lukien.

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/removing-the-bedrock-of-liberalism-826

Removing The Bedrock Of Liberalism
What the "Critical Race Theory" debate is really about.

As the origins of our current moral panic about "white supremacy" become more widely debated, we have an obvious problem: how to define the term "Critical Race Theory." (...)

In his forthcoming book, "The Constitution of Knowledge," Jonathan Rauch lays out some core principles that liberal societies rely upon. These are not optional if liberal society is to survive. And they are not easy, which is why we have created many institutions and practices to keep them alive. Rauch lists some of them: fallibilism, the belief that anyone, especially you, can always be wrong; objectivity, a rejection of any theory that cannot be proven or disproven by reality; accountability, the openness to conceding and correcting error; and pluralism, the maintenance of intellectual diversity so we maximize our chances of finding the truth.

The only human civilization that has ever depended on these principles is the modern West since the Enlightenment. That's a few hundred years as opposed to 200,000 or so of Homo sapiens' history, when tribalism, creedalism, warfare, theocracy or totalitarianism reigned.

The genius of liberalism in unleashing human freedom and the human mind changed us more in centuries than we had changed in hundreds of millennia. And at its core, there is the model of the single, interchangeable, equal citizen, using reason to deliberate the common good with fellow citizens. No ultimate authority; just inquiry and provisional truth. No final answer: an endless conversation. No single power, but many in competition.

(...)

My central problem with critical theory is that it takes precise aim at these very core principles and rejects them. By rejecting them, in the otherwise noble cause of helping the marginalized, it is a very seductive and potent threat to liberal civilization.

Am I exaggerating CRT's aversion to liberal modernity? I don't think I am. Here is how critical theory defines itself in one of its central documents. It questions the very foundations of "Enlightenment rationality, legal equality and Constitutional neutrality." It begins with the assertion that these are not ways to further knowledge and enlarge human freedom. They are rather manifestations of white power over non-white bodies. Formal legal equality, they argue, the promise of the American experiment, has never been actual equality, even as, over the centuries, it has been extended to everyone. It is, rather, a system to perpetuate inequality forever, which is the single and only reason racial inequality is still here.

Claims to truth are merely claims to power. That's what people are asked to become "awake" to: that liberalism is a lie. As are its purported values. Free speech is therefore not always a way to figure out the truth; it is just another way in which power is exercised — to harm the marginalized. The idea that a theory can be proven or disproven by the empirical process is itself a white supremacist argument, denying the "lived experience" of members of identity groups that is definitionally true, whatever the "objective" facts say. And our minds and souls and institutions have been so marinated in white supremacist culture for so long, critical theorists argue, that the system can only be dismantled rather than reformed. The West's idea of individual freedom — the very foundation of the American experiment — is, in their view, a way merely to ensure the permanent slavery of the non-white.

(...)

I know all this sounds highfalutin. But I honestly don't think what I have described is a "straw man." It is rather the core argument. I also know that the vast numbers of people who have adopted this rejection of foundational liberal principles often know only bastardized versions of this, and believe that they are merely helping encourage racial sensitivity and tolerance.

(...)

This is what makes CRT different. When it began, critical theory was one school of thought among many. But the logic of it — it denies the core liberal premises of all the other schools and renders them all forms of oppression — means that it cannot long tolerate those other schools. It must always attack them.

Critical theory is therefore always the cuckoo in the academic nest. Over time, it throws out its competitors — and not in open free debate. It does so by ending that debate, by insisting that the liberal "reasonable person" standard of debate is, in fact, rigged in favor of the oppressors, that speech is a form of harm, even violent harm, rather than a way to seek the truth. It insists that what matters is the identity of the participants in a debate, not the arguments themselves. If a cis white woman were to make an argument, a Latino trans man can dismiss it for no other reason than that a white cis woman is making it. Thus, identity trumps reason. Thus liberal society dies a little every time that dismissal sticks.

Every time a liberal institution hires or fires someone because of their group identity rather than their individual abilities, it is embracing a principle designed to undermine the liberal part of the institution. Every university that denies a place to someone because of their race is violating fundamental principles of liberal learning. Every newspaper and magazine that fires someone for their sincerely-held views, or because their identity alone means those views are unacceptable, is undermining the principles of liberal discourse. Every time someone prefers to trust someone's subjective "lived experience" over facts, empiricism and an attempt at objectivity, liberal society dies a little.

And every student who emerges from college who believes that what matters is whether you are on "the right side of history" rather than whether your ideas can be tested by the ruthless light of open debate is a student who does not have the ability to function as a citizen in a liberal society. The ability to respect and live peaceably alongside people with whom you vehemently disagree is a far harder skill than cheering on one of your own. And yet liberal institutions are openly demonstrating that it is precisely this kind of difficult toleration they will not tolerate.

I'm sorry but this matters. It's not the only thing that matters right now, I know. But if we remove the corner-stone of liberal democracy — the concept of a free, interchangeable citizen using reason to deliberate the common good with her fellow citizens, regardless of any identity — then it is only a matter of time before it falls. (...)

[zupi]

Koko rahalla sekaisin...

[tweet]1400657112104112130[/tweet]
[tweet]1399861412596535299[/tweet]
[tweet]1399821787744161793[/tweet]
[tweet]1399920282035499013[/tweet]
[tweet]1399934048349290499[/tweet]
[tweet]1399869443480694787[/tweet]
[tweet]1400592304084299784[/tweet]
[tweet]1400161533984796675[/tweet]

Ja tietenkin Seerutin heittoja lainauksina...

https://twitter.com/seerutkchawla

Grown adults do not need to be protected from 'harmful' ideas.
6:39 AM · May 29, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Children go to school to be educated not suffer the moral panics of their teachers.
8:48 PM · May 29, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

It's getting very hard to satirise the woke. They're already a dark comedy.
10:59 PM · May 29, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

I'm not convinced the woke are high in empathy, I think they're just conformists.
12:40 AM · May 30, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Wokeism attracts people who lack courage, competence, logic, emotional regulation, critical thinking, maturity & worst of all, a conscience.
6:06 AM · May 30, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

I criticise wokeness so vociferously because it warrants it. It's cult-like, authoritarian, racist & illiberal.

The damage it has done & could do is frightening. When a house is on fire sounding the alarm is the rational thing to do.
2:46 AM · May 31, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

The best "safe space" is feeling like an empowered, competent, resilient adult.
1:07 AM · Jun 1, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Communism is when you can't make everyone happy, so you make everyone equally miserable.
2:56 AM · Jun 3, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Older gays & lesbians fought for gay rights, lived through the aids crisis, suffered discrimination & were called 'queer' as a slur.

Only to be lectured on 'queerness' by the people who enjoy the rights they fought for.
5:07 PM · Jun 4, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Tämä pitää laittaa ihan twiittinä. Pitäisköhän itsekin alkaa lähetteleen laskuja Hyysärille ja Ylelle...

[tweet]1397559056991203332[/tweet]

[K. Martel]

Pitäisikö tai onko omaa ketjua "kriittisille" rotuopeille, vaiko tänne näiden muiden kulttuurimarksismin höpsismien joukkoon?

Yleisön eteen palannut Trump nosti esiin Yhdysvaltain kulttuurisodan tuoreimman kuuman perunan – vaati kieltoa kriittiselle rotuteorialle

Kriittisestä rotuteoriasta on näillä näkymin tulossa Yhdysvalloissa ensi vuonna käytävien välivaalien isoin kulttuurinen kiistakapula.

Puheessaan Trump nosti esille myös kriittisen rotuteorian, joka on noussut yhdeksi kuumimmista perunoista Yhdysvalloissa viime vuosina jälleen kiihtyneessä kulttuurisodassa. Kyse on akateemisesta lähestymistavasta, jolla pyritään tarkastelemaan Yhdysvaltain lakeja ja instituutioita rodun ja rasismin näkökulmasta.

Trump syytti seuraajaansa, demokraattien Joe Bideniä kriittisen rotuteorian tuputtamisesta koululaisille.

– Bidenin hallinto on laatinut säädöksiä, joilla amerikkalaisiin koululaisiin pyritään juurruttamaan myrkyllistä, kansaa jakavaa, vasemmistolaista oppia, kuten kriittistä rotuteoriaa. Se on täysi vastakohta amerikkalaiselle uskomukselle, jonka mukaan meidät kaikki on luotu tasavertaisiksi jumalan kuviksi, Trump sanoi.

Hänen mukaansa republikaanien tulisi "kaikilla tasoilla" ottaa oppia Pohjois-Carolinan republikaaneista ja ryhtyä välittömästi toimeen kriittisen rotuteorian kieltämiseksi maan kouluissa.

– Ja meidän tulisi kieltää se työpaikoillamme, osavaltioissamme ja liittovaltion hallinnossa. Se tulisi tehdä välittömästi, Trump sanoi yleisön puhjetessa aplodeihin seisaaltaan.

Yhteiskunnassa esiintyvää rakenteellista rasismia on nostanut esille viime vuosina muun muassa rasismin vastainen Black Lives Matter -liike. Kuva New Yorkissa toukokuun lopulla järjestetyltä George Floydin kuoleman vuosipäivän muistomarssilta. Kuva: Spencer Platt / AFP / Lehtikuva

Trump kritisoi myös demokraattien kouluihin kaavailemaa kansalaiskasvatusta, jossa hänen mukaansa oppilaille annettaisiin suorituspisteitä mielenosoituksiin osallistumisesta sekä siitä, että nämä "tekevät itsestään vasemmistoaktivisteja".

– Näille ihmisille ei tehdä mitään. He tappavat ihmisiä ja polttavat rakennuksia ja ottavat kohteekseen liittovaltion rakennuksia, eikä mitään tapahdu. Ihmiset ovat hiton vihaisia, jos hallituksen kouluissa juurrutetaan lapsiin radikaaleja ajatuksia. Republikaanien on välittömästi saatava läpi laki, joka antaa jokaiselle amerikkalaiselle vanhemmalle vallan jättäytyä pois tästä järjettömyydestä ja lähettää lapsensa valitsemaansa julkiseen, yksityiseen tai charterkouluun, ex-presidentti vaati.

https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000008032964.html

[zupi]

^

Kriittisen rotuteorian keskeisen ajatuksen mukaan rasismi ei ole ainoastaan yksittäisten, ennakkoluuloisten ihmisten tekemisiä tai sanomisia, vaan syvälle järjestelmään ja rakenteisiin juurtunut ilmiö, joka vaikuttaa negatiivisesti muiden kuin valkoisten ihmisten asemaan esimerkiksi kouluissa, työelämässä, terveydenhuollon piirissä ja oikeusjärjestelmässä.

Demokraatit liittolaisineen ovat puolestaan painottaneet, että edistystä ei Yhdysvalloissa vallitsevan epätasa-arvon kitkemisessä todennäköisesti tapahdu, ellei sen juurisyitä tutkita.

Republikaaneja ja muita konservatiiveja on syytetty siitä, että käyttävät alun perin rakenteellisen rasismin tunnistamiseen tarkoitettua, vuosikymmeniä vanhaa akateemista termiä kaatopaikkana, jonne voidaan heittää kaikki rasismin vastaiset ja yhteiskunnan monimuotoisuutta edistävät pyrkimykset.

Yhdysvaltain kulttuurisodan viimeisin rintamalinja on siis piirretty käytännössä siihen, tulisiko koululaisille opettaa historiaa ja kansalaistaitoja kriittistä rotuteoriaa työkaluna käyttäen. Kysymyksestä näyttää myös tulevan ensi vuoden välivaalien isoin kulttuurinen kiistakapula.

Taas piti tehdä kymmenen syvähengitystä ennen vastaamista... Hienoa propagandaa, vaikka tuosta onkin pahimmat jenkkimedian ylilyönnit höylätty pois. Kyseessä on siis "akateeminen termi", jolla "tunnistetaan yhteiskunnan rakenteellista rasismia". Siis sitä "rakenteellista rasismia", minkä tuo "akateeminen termi" on itse ensin ravistanut hihastaan, ja minkä tunnistamiseen koko paska perustuu... Eli käytännössä siihen, että todellinen CRT:n jedimestari tunnistaa rasismia joka ikisessä tapahtumassa ja kohtaamisessa. Ja "opettaa historiaa ja kansalaistaitoja kriittistä rotuteoriaa työkaluna käyttäen"...  Olisi nyt voinut rehellisesti kirjoittaa, että "vääristää historianopetusta ja opettaa vasemmistoaktivismia kriittistä rotuteoriaa työkaluna käyttäen".

Ja se "rakenteellinen rasismi" termi perustuu vain ja ainoastaan siihen, että eri ryhmien asema ja saavutukset yhteiskunnassa eivät ole samat. Sille, että tämä "epätasa-arvo" jollain tavalla johtuisi rasismista, vieläpä rakenteellisesta sellaisesta, ei ole kuitenkaan yhtään mitään perustetta tai todistetta. EI SIIS MITÄÄN. Kyseessä on vain ja ainoastaan marxististen sekopäiden postmodernismilla maustettu ajatuskyhäelmä, jonka kaiken maailman idiootit luulevan olevan jotain oikeaa "tiedettä". Päinvastaisia todisteita tosin löytyy vaikka miten paljon, lähtien nyt vaikka ihan siitä, että valkoiset amerikkalaiset eivät todellakaan ole se parhaiten pärjäävä etninen ryhmä USAssa. Briteissähän teetettiin äskettäin oikein kunnon selvityskin asiasta, eli sellainen, missä oikeasti haettiin niitä juurisyitä "lopputulosten epätasa-arvoon". Päätelmä oli, että rasismilla, mitä nyt jossain määrin luonnollisesti yhteiskunnassa on, on vain minimaalinen vaikutus tähän epätasa-arvoon. No, sekopäisille marxisteille tuo ei tietenkään kelvannut, koska CRT kertoo jo totuuden. Totuuden, mitä ei voi mitenkään kyseenalaistaa, mikä ei tarvi mitään todisteita ja jonka kiistäminen on... no tietenkin rasismia, ja rasisteillahan ei ole mitään ihmisoikeuksia. Ja tietenkin muuten nuo marxistit hyökkäsivät somessa täysillä selvityksen tehneen ryhmän jäsenten kimppuun, joista 11/12 oli ei-valkoisia.

UK-raporttiin liittyen:
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,131802.msg3293925.html#msg3293925
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,131802.msg3294192.html#msg3294192

[sancai]

^

Kriittisen rotuteorian keskeisen ajatuksen mukaan rasismi ei ole ainoastaan yksittäisten, ennakkoluuloisten ihmisten tekemisiä tai sanomisia, vaan syvälle järjestelmään ja rakenteisiin juurtunut ilmiö, joka vaikuttaa negatiivisesti muiden kuin valkoisten ihmisten asemaan esimerkiksi kouluissa, työelämässä, terveydenhuollon piirissä ja oikeusjärjestelmässä.

Demokraatit liittolaisineen ovat puolestaan painottaneet, että edistystä ei Yhdysvalloissa vallitsevan epätasa-arvon kitkemisessä todennäköisesti tapahdu, ellei sen juurisyitä tutkita.

Republikaaneja ja muita konservatiiveja on syytetty siitä, että käyttävät alun perin rakenteellisen rasismin tunnistamiseen tarkoitettua, vuosikymmeniä vanhaa akateemista termiä kaatopaikkana, jonne voidaan heittää kaikki rasismin vastaiset ja yhteiskunnan monimuotoisuutta edistävät pyrkimykset.

Yhdysvaltain kulttuurisodan viimeisin rintamalinja on siis piirretty käytännössä siihen, tulisiko koululaisille opettaa historiaa ja kansalaistaitoja kriittistä rotuteoriaa työkaluna käyttäen. Kysymyksestä näyttää myös tulevan ensi vuoden välivaalien isoin kulttuurinen kiistakapula.

Taas piti tehdä kymmenen syvähengitystä ennen vastaamista... Hienoa propagandaa, vaikka tuosta onkin pahimmat jenkkimedian ylilyönnit höylätty pois. Kyseessä on siis "akateeminen termi", jolla "tunnistetaan yhteiskunnan rakenteellista rasismia". Siis sitä "rakenteellista rasismia", minkä tuo "akateeminen termi" on itse ensin ravistanut hihastaan, ja minkä tunnistamiseen koko paska perustuu... Eli käytännössä siihen, että todellinen CRT:n jedimestari tunnistaa rasismia joka ikisessä tapahtumassa ja kohtaamisessa. Ja "opettaa historiaa ja kansalaistaitoja kriittistä rotuteoriaa työkaluna käyttäen"...  Olisi nyt voinut rehellisesti kirjoittaa, että "vääristää historianopetusta ja opettaa vasemmistoaktivismia kriittistä rotuteoriaa työkaluna käyttäen".

Ja se "rakenteellinen rasismi" termi perustuu vain ja ainoastaan siihen, että eri ryhmien asema ja saavutukset yhteiskunnassa eivät ole samat. Sille, että tämä "epätasa-arvo" jollain tavalla johtuisi rasismista, vieläpä rakenteellisesta sellaisesta, ei ole kuitenkaan yhtään mitään perustetta tai todistetta. EI SIIS MITÄÄN. Kyseessä on vain ja ainoastaan marxististen sekopäiden postmodernismilla maustettu ajatuskyhäelmä, jonka kaiken maailman idiootit luulevan olevan jotain oikeaa "tiedettä". Päinvastaisia todisteita tosin löytyy vaikka miten paljon, lähtien nyt vaikka ihan siitä, että valkoiset amerikkalaiset eivät todellakaan ole se parhaiten pärjäävä etninen ryhmä USAssa. Briteissähän teetettiin äskettäin oikein kunnon selvityskin asiasta, eli sellainen, missä oikeasti haettiin niitä juurisyitä "lopputulosten epätasa-arvoon". Päätelmä oli, että rasismilla, mitä nyt jossain määrin luonnollisesti yhteiskunnassa on, on vain minimaalinen vaikutus tähän epätasa-arvoon. No, sekopäisille marxisteille tuo ei tietenkään kelvannut, koska CRT kertoo jo totuuden. Totuuden, mitä ei voi mitenkään kyseenalaistaa, mikä ei tarvi mitään todisteita ja jonka kiistäminen on... no tietenkin rasismia, ja rasisteillahan ei ole mitään ihmisoikeuksia. Ja tietenkin muuten nuo marxistit hyökkäsivät somessa täysillä selvityksen tehneen ryhmän jäsenten kimppuun, joista 11/12 oli ei-valkoisia.

UK-raporttiin liittyen:
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,131802.msg3293925.html#msg3293925
https://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,131802.msg3294192.html#msg3294192

^Tuossa analyysissa unohdettiin mainita se kriittisen rotuteorian todellinen pihvi. Se ei vain tunnista "rakenteellista rasismia" yksilöllisen rasismin lisäksi, vaan kiistää yksilöllisen rasismin olemassaolon. Kriittinen rotuteoria hylkää kokonaan yksilölähtöisen maailmankuvan ja sen mukaan rasismi on vain ja ainoastaan kollektiivinen ilmiö, minkä takia kukaan musta yksilö ei voi olla rasistinen valkoista yksilöä kohtaan. Kriittinen rotuteoria ei näe ristiriitaa siinä, että kriittisen rotuteorian mukaan Oprah on sorrettu ja koditon valkoinen alkoholistiveteraani etuoikeutettu, koska se ei tiedosta yksilön olemassaoloa.

Kriittisen rotuteorian mukaan koko yhteiskuntaa ja kaikkia yhteiskunnallisia ilmiöitä, sekä kaikkia yksilöiden kohtaamisia selittää rotujen välinen kamppailu vallasta, siinä missä perinteiset marxistit uskoivat yhteiskunnan rakentuvan luokkataistelusta. Kriittisen rotuteorian mukaan siis myös pyrkimys kohdella kaikkia tasapuolisesti tai "rotusoeus" on rasismia, koska se ylläpitää nykyisiä yhteiskunnallisia valtarakenteita. Kriittisen rotuteorian mukaan kaikki, paitsi markkinataloutta, länsimaalaisuutta ja "valkoisuutta" vastaan kapinointi on rasismia. Jopa sellaiset asiat kuin ahkeruus, aikataulujen noudattaminen, itsenäisyys, ydinperhe ja kauneus ovat rasismia ylläpitävää valkoisuutta.

Kriittinen rotuteoria on siis rotusegregaatiota ja marxistista luokkataistelua uudessa paketissa. Lähes kaikelle, mitä kriittinen rotuteoria kutsuu "valkoisuudeksi", synonyymi on "porvarillisuus".

[sancai]

Tämä kriittinen rotuteoria on siitä mielenkiintoinen aate eurooppalaisessa kontekstissa, että täällä sitä ei sulateta. Seinä on tullut vastaan valtavirtapuolueiden osalta jo esimerkiksi Ranskassa ja Britanniassa. Ranskassa Emmanuel Macron ja lukuisat valtavirran poliittiset vaikuttajat asettuivat näyttävästi tätä aatetta vastaan ja Britanniassa Konservatiivipuolue, joka siis vastaa konservatiivisuudeltaan Suomen Kokoomusta, perusti BLM-protestien seurauksena työryhmän, joka tuotti pitkän selvityksen, että Britannia ei ole rakenteellisesti rasistinen maa. Yhdysvalloissa valtamedia asettui Macronia vastaan ja haukkui hänet valkoisen ylivallan kannattajaksi sellaisia valheita viljellen, että Macron itse soitti päätoimituksiin korjatakseen valheet. Ilmeisesti kriittisen rotuteorian tuoma rotusegregaatio ja rotuidentiteettien omaksuminen on liikaa eurooppalaiselle tasa-arvokäsitykselle. Seuraan mielenkiinnolla, miten tämä etenee Suomessa.

[nochWunder]

^Ei mene enää kauaa kun valkoisia perheitä löytyy tapettuna USA:ssa ja ehkä jopa Kanadassa.

[zupi]

Tästä piti alunperin kirjoitella, mutta tämähän menee mukavasti tuon CRT-pärinän perään, eli sen tulos käytännössä. Tällä kertaa terveydenhoidon alalta.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-happens-when-doctors-cant-speak

What Happens When Doctors Can't Tell the Truth?
Whole areas of research are off-limits. Top physicians treat patients based on their race. An ideological 'purge' is underway in American medicine.
   
Katie Herzog
   
(...)

They meet once a month on Zoom: a dozen doctors from around the country with distinguished careers in different specialities. They vary in ethnicity, age and sexual orientation. Some work for the best hospitals in the U.S. or teach at top medical schools. Others are dedicated to serving the most vulnerable populations in their communities.

The meetings are largely a support group. The members share their concerns about what's going on in their hospitals and universities, and strategize about what to do. What is happening, they say, is the rapid spread of a deeply illiberal ideology in the country's most important medical institutions.

This dogma goes by many imperfect names — wokeness, social justice, critical race theory, anti-racism — but whatever it's called, the doctors say this ideology is stifling critical thinking and dissent in the name of progress. They say that it's turning students against their teachers and patients and racializing even the smallest interpersonal interactions. Most concerning, they insist that it is threatening the foundations of patient care, of research, and of medicine itself.

These aren't secret bigots who long for the "good old days" that were bad for so many. (...)

I've heard from doctors who've been reported to their departments for criticizing residents for being late. (It was seen by their trainees as an act of racism.) I've heard from doctors who've stopped giving trainees honest feedback for fear of retaliation. I've spoken to those who have seen clinicians and residents refuse to treat patients based on their race or their perceived conservative politics.

Some of these doctors say that there is a "purge" underway in the world of American medicine: question the current orthodoxy and you will be pushed out. They are so worried about the dangers of speaking out about their concerns that they will not let me identify them except by the region of the country where they work.

"People are afraid to speak honestly," said a doctor who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union. "It's like back to the USSR, where you could only speak to the ones you trust." If the authorities found out, you could lose your job, your status, you could go to jail or worse. The fear here is not dissimilar.

When doctors do speak out, shared another, "the reaction is savage. And you better be tenured and you better have very thick skin."

"We're afraid of what's happening to other people happening to us," a doctor on the West Coast told me. "We are seeing people being fired. We are seeing people's reputations being sullied. There are members of our group who say, 'I will be asked to leave a board. I will endanger the work of the nonprofit that I lead if this comes out.' People are at risk of being totally marginalized and having to leave their institutions."

While the hyper focus on identity is seen by many proponents of social justice ideology as a necessary corrective to America's past sins, some people working in medicine are deeply concerned by what "justice" and "equity" actually look like in practice.

"The intellectual foundation for this movement is the Marxist view of the world, but stripped of economics and replaced with race determinism," one psychologist explained. (...)

"Wokeness feels like an existential threat," a doctor from the Northwest said. "In health care, innovation depends on open, objective inquiry into complex problems, but that's now undermined by this simplistic and racialized worldview where racism is seen as the cause of all disparities, despite robust data showing it's not that simple."

"Whole research areas are off-limits," he said, adding that some of what is being published in the nation's top journals is "shoddy as hell."

Here, he was referring in part to a study published last year in the Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences. The study was covered all over the news, with headlines like "Black Newborns More Likely to Die When Looked After by White Doctors" (CNN), "The Lack of Black Doctors is Killing Black Babies" (Fortune), and "Black Babies More Likely to Survive when Cared for by Black Doctors" (The Guardian).

Despite these breathless headlines, the study was so methodologically flawed that, according to several of the doctors I spoke with, it's impossible to extrapolate any conclusions about how the race of the treating doctor impacts patient outcomes at all. And yet very few people were willing to publicly criticize it. As Vinay Prasad, a clinician and a professor at the University of California San Francisco, put it on Twitter: "I am aware of dozens of people who agree with my assessment of this paper and are scared to comment."

"It's some of the most shoddy, methodologically flawed research we've ever seen published in these journals," the doctor in the Zoom meeting said, "with sensational conclusions that seem totally unjustified from the results of the study."

"It's frustrating because we all know how hard it is to get good, sound research published," he added. "So do those rules and quality standards no longer apply to this topic, or to these authors, or for a certain time period?"

At the same time that the bar appears to be lower for articles and studies that push an anti-racist agenda, the consequences for questioning or criticizing that agenda can be high.

Just ask Norman Wang. Last year, the University of Pittsburgh cardiologist was demoted by his department after he published a paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) analyzing and criticizing diversity initiatives in cardiology. Looking at 50 years of data, Wang argued that affirmative action and other diversity initiatives have failed to both meaningfully increase the percentage of black and Hispanic clinicians in his field or to improve patient outcomes. Rather than admitting, hiring and promoting clinicians based on their race, he argued for race-neutral policies in medicine.

"Long-term academic solutions and excellence should not be sacrificed for short-term demographic optics," Wang wrote. "Ultimately, all who aspire to a profession in medicine and cardiology must be assessed as individuals on the basis of their personal merits, not their racial and ethnic identities."

At first, there was little response. But four months after it was published, screenshots of the paper began circulating on Twitter and others in the field began accusing Wang of racism. Sharonne Hayes, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, implored colleagues to "rise up." "The fact that this is published in 'our' journal should both enrage & activate all of us," she wrote, adding the hashtag #RetractRacists.

Soon after, Barry London, the editor in chief of JAHA, issued an apology and the journal retracted the work over Wang's objection. London cited no specific errors in Wang's paper in his statement, just that publishing it was antithetical to his and the journal's values. Retraction, in a case like this, is exceedingly rare: When papers are retracted, it's generally because of the data or the study has been discredited. A search of the journal's website and the Retraction Database found records of just two retractions in JAHA: Wang's paper and a 2019 paper that erroneously linked heart attacks to vaping.

After the outcry, the American Heart Association (AHA), which publishes the journal, issued a statement denouncing Wang's paper and promising an investigation. In a tweet, the organization said it "does NOT represent AHA values. JAHA is editorially independent but that's no excuse. We'll investigate. We'll do better. We're invested in helping to build a diverse health care and research community."

As the criticism mounted, Wang was removed from his position as the director of a fellowship program in clinical cardiac electrophysiology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and was prohibited from making any contact with students. His boss reportedly told him that his classroom was "inherently unsafe" due to the views he expressed.

(...)

JAHA isn't the only journal issuing apologies. In February, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) released a podcast hosted by surgeon and then-deputy journal editor Edward Livingston, who questioned the value of the hyper focus on race in medicine as well as the idea that medicine is systemically racist.

"Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help," Livingston said at one point. "Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist."

(...) A number of researchers vowed to boycott the journal, and a petition condemning JAMA has received over 9,000 signatures. In response to the backlash, JAMA quickly deleted the episode, promised to investigate, and asked Livingston to resign from his job. He did.

If you try to access the podcast today, you find an apology in its place from JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, who called Livingston's statements, "inaccurate, offensive, hurtful and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA." (...)

What happened to Norman Wang, Edward Livingston, and Howard Bauchner contribute to what one clinician described as a "a chilly atmosphere." That chill extends to teaching the next generation of doctors.

"Some attending physicians are hesitant to provide constructive criticism to trainees over fears of being perceived as racist," a doctor in the Northeast said. "You ask yourself, 'Is this worth bringing up?' You second guess yourself."

(...)

This was what he was taught in his training years ago: You meet patients where they are, help them as much as you can, and hope they are better off for the encounter.

That philosophy, however, is changing. Increasingly, the doctors told me, this next generation of trainees seem to believe it's also their duty to confront patients about their own prejudice — whether they're open to it or not.

(...)

The diversity industry is now worth billions of dollars, but there have been surprisingly few evaluations of whether or not such trainings actually work. The research that has been done is not encouraging. One study found that these trainings can be counterproductive; another found that positive effects don't seem to last.

(...)

There's clearly a generation gap between these doctors on Zoom, the youngest of whom has been practicing for at least 10 years, and doctors just beginning their career. The older clinicians are more likely to appear politically neutral, at least at work, while younger students and clinicians are more likely to prioritize activism. Those differences can be a major source of tension.

One prominent organization, White Coats for Black Lives, was formed by medical students in 2014 and now has at least 75 chapters all over the U.S. In addition to publishing a Racial Justice Report Card that grades medical schools, the group encourages medical students to make specific demands of their institutions, including that medical schools and hospitals end all relationships with local law enforcement.

When asked what severing ties with police would do in his urban emergency room, one ER doctor said it would be a "total disaster."  (...)

As another example of the generation gap, an ER doctor on the West Coast said he sees providers, particularly younger ones, applying antiracist principles in choosing how they allocate their time and which patients they choose to work with.  "I've heard examples of Covid-19 cases in the emergency department where providers go, 'I'm not going to go treat that white guy, I'm going to treat the person of color instead because whatever happened to the white guy, he probably deserves it.'"

Some in medicine would like to see such race-conscious bias mandated on an institutional level, particularly in regards to Covid-19, which has killed black, Hispanic, and Native American people at three times the rate as whites. These discrepancies are likely due to an array of factors, including income, housing, work, language, pre-existing conditions, access to health care, and, yes, possibly some degree of racism.

But some politicians and public health officials decided the remedy was to distribute vaccines by race.

Yhteisön kulttuurilla, omilla valinnoilla ja elämäntavalla ei tietenkään ole mitään merkitystä tuohon kuolemien määrään...

"We've got this opportunity right now to advance really important, progressive reforms," one doctor said. "Every American understands that the system doesn't work, that we need better public health, we need better primary care." But this physician is concerned that "the people leading the woke effort have a deeply unsophisticated understanding of how change occurs in this country. It's dangerous. I'm fearful there's going to be a counter-reaction that's going to be huge and vicious and ugly."

Others fear the same. Another doctor on the call, a psychologist, called the new orthodoxy a "moral panic" and "symbolic crusade," like Prohibition, in which the outcome is less important than the sacredness of the movement.

"What happens with symbolic crusades is they overreach and you get a tremendous backlash," he continued. "If hospitals actually adopt a policy of what can be construed as favoring black people in the ICU, can you imagine what conservative media would do with that? It would play into every fear that what this is really about is suppressing liberty, chilling free speech. I didn't used to think those fears were legitimate. Now I do. I get it."

[zupi]

Tämä kriittinen rotuteoria on siitä mielenkiintoinen aate eurooppalaisessa kontekstissa, että täällä sitä ei sulateta. Seinä on tullut vastaan valtavirtapuolueiden osalta jo esimerkiksi Ranskassa ja Britanniassa. Ranskassa Emmanuel Macron ja lukuisat valtavirran poliittiset vaikuttajat asettuivat näyttävästi tätä aatetta vastaan ja Britanniassa Konservatiivipuolue, joka siis vastaa konservatiivisuudeltaan Suomen Kokoomusta, perusti BLM-protestien seurauksena työryhmän, joka tuotti pitkän selvityksen, että Britannia ei ole rakenteellisesti rasistinen maa. Yhdysvalloissa valtamedia asettui Macronia vastaan ja haukkui hänet valkoisen ylivallan kannattajaksi sellaisia valheita viljellen, että Macron itse soitti päätoimituksiin korjatakseen valheet. Ilmeisesti kriittisen rotuteorian tuoma rotusegregaatio ja rotuidentiteettien omaksuminen on liikaa eurooppalaiselle tasa-arvokäsitykselle. Seuraan mielenkiinnolla, miten tämä etenee Suomessa.

Brittien suhteen on ehkä toivoa, että siellä on aitoa halua estää tuon hulluuden leviäminen, mutta vähän kiikun kaakun on tilanne sielläkin. Esim. "vihapuhe"lakien suhteen tilanne ei ole ollenkaan hyvä. Jotenkin olen skeptinen melkeinpä kaikkien länsimaiden suhteen. Ja Micronin vastustukseen en luota pätkääkään. Ranskassa kansa ehkä on oikeasti noita hullutuksia vastaan, ja he tunnetusti siellä myös osoittavat mielipiteensä, mutta Microni haluaisi kyllä vetää ihan "käsikirjoituksen mukaan". Ainoa syy sille, että hän näyttelee vastustavansa näitä marxismisekoiluja on Le Penin pelko. Saas nähdä, uppoaako Micronin kusetus ranskalaisiin. Micronin todellinen asenne nähtiin kyllä reaktiosta pariin Ranskan armeijan upseerien kirjeeseen.

Suomen kannalta noilla kummallakaan maalla ei tässä suhteessa sinänsä liene juurikaan merkitystä. EU:ssa valta on tiukasti komukka-Merkelillä, tuolla Euroopan ensimmäisellä wokeistilla, ja hänen lakeijoillaan. Ja hänen pillinsä mukaan täällä Suomessakin tanssii kaikki puolueet Persuja lukuun ottamatta. Ja Niinistö mukaan lukien, vaikka joskus vähän nariseekin. Niinistöstä voisi sen verran mainita, että tuo hemmo tulee nähdäkseni tekemään kautensa loppuun asti kaiken mahdollisen sen eteen, ettei Halliksesta tulisi pääministeriä. Järjetön persuviha suorastaan tihkuu äijästä.

[Lalli IsoTalo]

Tämä kriittinen rotuteoria on siitä mielenkiintoinen aate eurooppalaisessa kontekstissa, että täällä sitä ei sulateta. Seinä on tullut vastaan valtavirtapuolueiden osalta jo esimerkiksi Ranskassa ja Britanniassa. Ranskassa Emmanuel Macron ja lukuisat valtavirran poliittiset vaikuttajat asettuivat näyttävästi tätä aatetta vastaan ...

Ranskankirjeenvaihtajani oli vähän sitä mieltä, että tässä oli mukana aika paljon mukana sitä, että koska kansalla ei ole mitään harhakuvia mustien vaikutuksesta yhteiskuntaan, niin kyseessä oli Macronin strateginen yritys estää poliittisten vastustajien kannatuksen nousu.

Macron nyt kuitenkin on mokuttajia, ja keltaliivien vastustaja/vihollinen.

[jetsku]

Yhteisön kulttuurilla, omilla valinnoilla ja elämäntavalla ei tietenkään ole mitään merkitystä tuohon kuolemien määrään...

Ei tarvitse olla kovinkaan kummoinen sosiologi, kun huomaa, mistä tämä johtuu. Kovimpien koronalukujen aikaan todistin moneen kertaan omin silmin, kuinka nämä ei-kantikset kokoontuvat huoltsikoille, juna-asemille, ostareille ynnä muihin vastaaviin paikkoihin kuin mitään koronaa ei olisikaan. Kulttuurityypillisesti kohdatessa kätellään ja halitaan, kaverille puhutaan 20 sentin etäisyydeltä, ja mistään maskeista ei ole tietoakaan. Joo, varmaan nuo asuvat ahtaammin kuin kantikset, mutta eivät ne turvavälit isossakaan kodissa kovin helposti pysy. Muista en tiedä, mutta minä ainakin olen ollut läheisessä kontaktissa vaimoni kanssa viimeisen 15 kuukauden aikana. Korona ei ole tarttunut, koska kumpikaan ei ole sitä saanut kodin ulkopuolelta.

Tämä CSJ on kyllä ihan karmivaa settiä. En kuuna päivänä olisi uskonut vuosituhannen vaihteessa, että Suvi-Anne "En koskaan minkään sortin sosialisti" Siimeksen vasemmiston ja Mooseksen demarien - sekä tietysti Neuvostoliiton kaatumisen ja uskonnon roolin vähenemisen myötä kovaa vauhtia liberalisoituvassa yhteiskunnassa - jäljiltä 20 vuotta myöhemmin meillä olisi iso vasemmisto, joka vannoo mielipidepoliisin ja rotusorron autuuteen. Ilmeisesti on niin, että jos ihmiset eivät itse näe hirmuvaltaa, he tulevat sokeiksi omalle hirmuvallalleen.

[zupi]

https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000008032964.html

Republikaaneja ja muita konservatiiveja on syytetty siitä, että käyttävät alun perin rakenteellisen rasismin tunnistamiseen tarkoitettua, vuosikymmeniä vanhaa akateemista termiä kaatopaikkana, jonne voidaan heittää kaikki rasismin vastaiset ja yhteiskunnan monimuotoisuutta edistävät pyrkimykset.

Yhdysvaltain kulttuurisodan viimeisin rintamalinja on siis piirretty käytännössä siihen, tulisiko koululaisille opettaa historiaa ja kansalaistaitoja kriittistä rotuteoriaa työkaluna käyttäen. Kysymyksestä näyttää myös tulevan ensi vuoden välivaalien isoin kulttuurinen kiistakapula.

Asiaan liittyen:

https://christopherrufo.com/crt-briefing-book/

KEY CONCEPTS AND QUOTATIONS

Race essentialism: Critical race theory reduces individuals to the quasi-metaphysical categories of "Blackness" and "Whiteness," then loads those categories with value connotations—positive traits are attributed to "Blackness" and negative traits are attributed to "Whiteness." Although some critical race theorists formally reject race essentialism, functionally, they often use these categories as malicious labels that erase individual identities.

(...)

All whites are racist: Critical race theorists argue explicitly that "all white people are racist" and perpetuate systems of white supremacy and systemic racism. This concept is deeply related to race essentialism—whites, including small children, cannot escape from being racist.

(...)

America is a fundamentally racist nation: Critical race theorists argue that American was founded on racism, slavery, and white supremacy—and remains a fundamentally racist nation to this day.

(...)

Collective guilt: Critical race theory claims that individuals categorized as "White" are inherently responsible for injustice and oppression committed by white populations in the past. This concept is sometimes framed as "white guilt," "white shame," and "white complicity," which are psychological manifestations of collective guilt.

(...)

Opposition to equality under the law: Critical race theorists explicitly reject the principle of equality under the law, including the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They argue that legal equality, nondiscrimination, and colorblindness are mere "camouflages" (Tate, 1997) used to uphold white supremacist structures.

(...)

Opposition to meritocracy: Critical race theorists oppose meritocracy, especially standardized testing and competitive admissions in the education system. They claim that meritocracy is a mechanism to uphold racist structures and is derived from "racism, nativism, and eugenics" (Au, 2013).

(...)

Active racial discrimination: Critical race theorists believe that the state must actively discriminate against racial groups that are deemed "privileged," meaning whites and sometimes Asians. Critical race theorists support policies such as racial quotas, race-based benefits, and race-based redistribution of wealth.

(...)

Restriction of free speech: Critical race theorists believe that the First Amendment serves to advance the interests of white supremacy and systemic racism, under the guise of freedom of speech. They argue that the government should restrict freedom of speech that is "racist" or "hateful."

(...)

Abolition of whiteness: Critical race theorists believe that society should work to "abolish the white race." Although they often insist that this means dismantling cultural constructions associated with white identity, this language often adopts tropes associated with race eliminationism.

(...)

Neo-segregation: Critical race theorists endorse a new form of racial segregation—often called "racial affinity groups" or "racial caucuses"—with separate meetings, facilities, living quarters, and training programs for whites and racial minorities. The assumption is that whites must "do the work" to address their "internalized racial superiority" and racial minorities must be protected from invasive "whiteness."

(...)

Anti-capitalism and forced redistribution of property: Critical race theorists have adopted the core Marxist position of anti-capitalism, arguing that America is an "imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" (hooks, 2012). They argue that "whiteness, initially constructed as a form of racial identity, evolved into a form of property" (Harris, 1993), allowing whites to extend domination from slavery into the free-market society. The solution is to redistribute private property and dismantle the system of capitalism.

Critical race theory in schools

- Seattle Public Schools told teachers that the education system is guilty of "spirit murder" against black children and that white teachers must "bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance." Link.

- San Diego Public Schools accused white teachers of being colonizers on stolen Native American land and told them "you are racist" and "you are upholding racist ideas, structures, and policies." They recommended that the teachers undergo "antiracist therapy." Link.

- A Cupertino, California, elementary school forced third-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, then rank themselves according to their "power and privilege." They separated the eight-year-old children into oppressors and oppressed. Link.

- A middle school in Springfield, Missouri, forced teachers to locate themselves on an "oppression matrix," claiming that white heterosexual Protestant males are inherently oppressors and must atone for their "covert white supremacy." Link.

- A Philadelphia elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate "Black communism" and simulated a Black Power rally to "free Angela Davis" from prison. At this school, 87 percent of students will fail to achieve basic literacy by graduation. Link.

- Buffalo Public Schools taught students that "all white people" perpetuate systemic racism and forced kindergarteners to watch a video of dead black children warning them about "racist police and state-sanctioned violence" who might kill them at any time. Link.

- The Arizona Department of Education created an "equity" toolkit claiming that babies show the first signs of racism at three months old and that white children become full racists—"strongly biased in favor of whiteness"—by age five. Link.

- The California Department of Education passed an "ethnic studies" curriculum that calls for the "decolonization" of American society and has students chant to the Aztec god of human sacrifice. The solution, according to one author, is "countergenocide." Link.

- North Carolina's largest school district launched a campaign against "whiteness in educational spaces"—and encouraged teachers to subvert families and push the ideology of "antiracism" directly onto students without parental consent. Link.

- Santa Clara County Office of Education denounced the United States as a "parasitic system" based on the "invasion" of "white male settlers" and encouraged teachers to "cash in on kids' inherent empathy" in order to recruit them into political activism. Link.

- Portland Public Schools trained children to become race-conscious revolutionaries by teaching that racism "infects the very structure(s) of our society," and telling students to immerse themselves in "revolution." Link.

- The principal of East Side Community School in New York sent white parents a "tool for action," which tells them they must become "white traitors" and then advocate for full "white abolition." Link.

- Students at the elite United Nations International School launched an anonymous social media campaign denouncing their teachers as "racists" and "oppressors"—and school administrators immediately caved to their demands. Link.

Että sellaista "rasismin vastaisuutta", sellaista "yhteiskunnan monimuotoisuuden edistämistä", ja sellaista "historian ja kansalaistaitojen opetusta"...